2 BROS PIZZA: More Workers Join Minimum Wage, OT Class Action-------------------------------------------------------------Stephen Rex Brown and Dareh Gregorian, writing for New York DailyNews, report that the secret ingredient for 2 Bros.' dollar pizzais underpaid workers, a lawsuit charges. The class-action suitsays workers at the popular pizza chain worked 60- to 70-hourweeks for less than minimum wage and no overtime.

"They built their dollar pizza empire on the backs of my clientsand other workers by grossly underpaying them," said their lawyer,Adam Slater. "It's just unfair."

Gabriel Bailon, who worked as a piemaker and cashier at thechain's flagship pizzeria on St. Marks Place and saw 2 Bros.become a citywide staple, said he and other employees were talkedinto staying with phony promises about raises, but their bossesnever came up with the dough. The cheap pizza chain did cutworkers' hours this year, "but they gave me less money, too," saidMr. Bailon, who would typically work from 11 in the morning until11 or 12 at night, six days a week.

Another longtime worker, Ruben Aca, worked 72 hours a week at theeatery's Lexington Ave. locale, where he said he was paid a flat$480 a week -- or $6.66 an hour -- for two years. The suit sayshe got a raise to $600 a week in 2014 -- but still works 60-hourweeks.

Howard Davis, an attorney for the owners of 2 Bros., Eli and OrenHalali, as well as their father, Joshua, said they would prevailin court. Mr. Davis said, "2 Bros. pays its employees incompliance with city, state and federal law and categoricallydenies the claims made by the plaintiffs."

The suit seeks back pay for hundreds of the chain's workers who itsays have "not been paid minimum wage, overtime wages, spread ofhours wages, (and) who had wages unlawfully deducted."

More than a dozen plaintiffs have joined the suit and more arecoming forward, Slater said. He estimated the damages owed theworkers will be in excess of $10 million.

Mr. Bailon, a 27-year-old father of two, said he quit this year.

"I found another job with less hours where they pay me good," theBronx man said.

The cheap slice chain is not the only well-known pizza joint toface charges of underpaying workers. In March, a judge orderedthe owner of five Papa John's locations in Harlem to pay $2.1million to underpaid delivery workers. And in April, stateAttorney General Eric Schneiderman announced that four Domino'sPizza franchise owners had agreed to pay $970,000 for a variety oflabor violations.

On certain vehicles, some lots of A/C compressor clutch drivebolts may be defective. If the A/C clutch drive falls off thevehicle during operation while the vehicle is underway, the clutchdrive could strike another vehicle, stationary object, orbystander, causing injury and/or property damage. Correction:Dealers will replace the clutch drive bolt, and if necessaryinstall a new clutch plate.

ADOBE SYSTEMS: Settles 2013 Data Breach Class Action----------------------------------------------------Linn Freedman, Esq. of Robinson & Cole LLP, in an article forJDSupra, reports that Adobe Systems, Inc. has agreed to settle theproposed class action lawsuit filed against it following thebreach of its system in 2013. The breach compromised personal andpayment card data of millions of its customers. There were noallegations of actual damage or identity theft as a result of thesecurity breach.

The settlement awards $5,000 to each named plaintiff andattorneys' fees of $1.18 million. Adobe has agreed to implementadditional security measures and to submit to an independentsecurity audit to ensure it has implemented the security measures.Sounds like a lot of attorneys' fees for no claimed damages.

Several class action cases were filed against Advocate Healthfollowing the breach and the cases were dismissed by the trialcourts for lack of standing as the plaintiffs had failed toestablish an injury in fact. The dismissals were appealed.

On June 2, 2015, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed thedismissal of the suits stating "[H]ere, plaintiffs' allegations ofinjury are clearly speculative, and, therefore, they lack standingto bring suit." The Court further held that the allegations ofinjury set forth in the Complaints, including an increased risk ofidentity theft are speculative and conclusory as the plaintiffsdid not allege that they actually were the victims of identitytheft. Illinois law requires the showing of a "distinct andpalpable injury" in order to move forward with a claim.

This holding is consistent with other standing cases that havebeen decided in both federal and state court cases, and expandsthe precedent in this area.

AGRI-FINE CORP: Faces Class Action Over Noxious Odors-----------------------------------------------------Robin Amer, writing for DNAinfo, reports that Southeast Sidehomeowners have filed a lawsuit seeking class action statusagainst Agri-Fine Corp., alleging that the animal feedmanufacturer damaged their property with noxious odors from itsplant. In a suit filed in Cook County Circuit Court June 4, thehomeowners accused Agri-Fine of "causing material injury" to the"use and enjoyment of their property" and of knowingly operatingits facility "without proper or best available odor-controltechnology."

"We've been contacted by as many as 200 homes," attorney StevenLiddle said on June 22. "There are hundreds of people complainingabout it. It's not just three irate neighbors."

The class action suit against Agri-Fine echoes allegations laidout in a separate complaint brought by the Illinois AttorneyGeneral's Office in November. Illinois Attorney General LisaMadigan accused Agri-Fine of violating the Illinois EnvironmentalProtection Act by spewing higher-than-permitted levels of sulfurdioxide and hydrogen sulfide from its Southeast Side facility.Both gases correlate with increased levels of respiratory illness,according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

DNAinfo Chicago found hundreds of complaints filed against thecompany going back as far as 1993.

"What the state is addressing is the public trust -- the ambientair," Mr. Liddle said. "What these [plaintiffs] are looking toaddress is their own personal property."

Liddle & Dubin specializes in class action environmental lawsuitsand previously won a $12 million settlement in Caines v. MarathonOil Co., a case of "chronic noxious odors and air pollutionreleased from an oil refinery," according to the firm's website.

Agri-Fine Chief Operating Officer Erik Hoelzeman declined tocomment on the pending suit. Mr. Hoelzeman previously toldDNAinfo Chicago that his company had spent "millions" on odor-control measures but thought that some complaints against hiscompany were made in error.

"We are at the tip of the industrial corridor," Mr. Hoelzemansaid. "We want to fix our issues but we have to make sure wenarrow them down to the complaints [about smells] actually comingfrom us."

Agri-Fine was previously represented in the case of the AttorneyGeneral's complaint by Chicago attorney Mark A. Stang, a formerpartner at Chuhak & Tescon PC. The firm filed a motion June 10 towithdraw from the case, stating that Strang no longer worked forthe company. Mr. Stang did not return calls for comment onJune 22. A representative for Chuhak & Tescon said the companydoes not comment on pending litigation or attorneys who have leftthe company.

Meanwhile, Liddle & Dubin has invited residents of Jeffery Manor,Veteran's Park and South Deering to meet with its attorneys at aseries of public information meetings scheduled for June 24. Thefirm has rented a room at Sacred Heart School, 2926 E. 96th St.,and was set to conduct meetings at 6, 7 and 8 p.m.

The lawsuit, recently filed in Calgary, claims the Alberta MotorVehicle Industry Council (AMVIC) failed to effectively regulatethe business practices within the auto industry, and allegesService Alberta failed to properly oversee AMVIC.

The allegations relate to the failure of Treadz, a Red Deer-based,auto-consignment company. The lawsuit claims Treadz, owned bySean Patrick O'Brien, failed to pay owners after their vehicleswere sold and failed, as promised, to remove liens from thevehicles. But the lawsuit makes the broader claim that ServiceAlberta failed to properly oversee AMVIC by not ensuring AMVICacted to correct serious deficiencies in its policies andoperational conduct identified in two reviews.

As reported by CBC News in April, an internal Service Albertadraft review of AMVIC, conducted in the fall of 2014, found somany serious problems it recommended immediate action to maintainpublic and industry confidence in the arm's length regulator.

The review also found AMVIC executive director John Bachinskiacted "as a tyrant and dictator who interprets any question ofdecision, direction or process as disobedience and responds withintimidation, veiled threats of firing, or general bullying andbelittling."

The council licenses and regulates both auto dealers and repairshops. It also investigates consumer complaints. It is supposedto serve as the self-regulating watchdog over the industry onbehalf of the public. AMVIC operates under the purview of ServiceAlberta, which appoints a board to oversee it.

Failure to investigate

The lawsuit claims that despite the scathing review, AMVIC "failedto fully implement the recommendations" made by Service Alberta inMarch 2009, February 2013 and August 2014, and "to date, ServiceAlberta has failed to sanction AMVIC for its failure to implementthese recommendations."

Specifically in relation to Treadz, the class-action lawsuit alsoclaims AMVIC failed to properly and efficiently investigate theconcerns and/or claims made by its members and failed toadequately compensate them from the compensation fund. Because ofthis alleged negligence, the class-action members claim AMVIC andService Alberta failed to protect them from unfair businesspractices and failed to enforce legislation related to the same.None of the allegations has been proven in court and no statementof defense has been filed.

The organization has a long history of problems. The draftreview, obtained by CBC News, found numerous serious issues,including poor-quality investigations, low morale, anextraordinarily high rate of staff turnover and the factMr. Bachinski improperly involved himself in investigations.

Outside the legislature on June 22, Service Alberta MinisterDeron Bilous said he could not comment on the lawsuit because itis now before the courts. He also declined to say what, if any,changes might be made to AMVIC by his department.

Mr. Bilous would only say AMVIC would be reviewed as part of thenew government's ongoing review of all the province's agencies,boards and commissions.

ALLIANTGROUP LP: Texas Forum Selection Clause Unenforceable-----------------------------------------------------------Daniel J. McCoy, Esq. and Saundra L. M. Riley, Esq., in an articlefor Lexology, report that in Verdugo v. AlliantGroup, L.P., aCalifornia appeals court disregarded a forum selection clauserequiring a California employee to pursue her wage and hour claimsin Texas under Texas law, finding the clause violated Californiapublic policy. The plaintiff had signed an employment agreementselecting Harris County, Texas as the exclusive forum forresolution of employment disputes and designating Texas law as thegoverning law. When the plaintiff brought a class action inCalifornia for unpaid overtime and other Labor Code violations,the employer sought to enforce the contract. The trial courtstayed the California action to allow the matter to proceed inTexas. The appellate court disagreed and lifted the stay, findingthe clause unenforceable as against public policy. The courtconcluded the Labor Code afforded California employees certainunwaivable rights. Forcing the plaintiff to litigate her claims inTexas, where the choice-of-law clause would require application ofTexas law (unless the Texas court were to decide to disregard it),had the potential to diminish the employee's unwaivablesubstantive rights. The defendant had failed to prove -- or evenstipulate -- that California law would be enforced, so the Courtrefused to enforce the forum selection clause.

ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Settles Class Action Over Beck's Beer Advertising-----------------------------------------------------------------St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that Anheuser-Busch has reached asettlement in a lawsuit that alleged the brewer misled customersto believe Beck's beer sold in the United States is brewed inGermany.

Francisco Rene Marty, Seth Goldman, and Fernando Marquet sued A-Bin federal court in Florida in October 2013, alleging Beck'sadvertising and packaging misled customers to pay more for beerthey incorrectly believed was an import. The lawsuit contendedthat Beck's produced in St. Louis used Missouri water that differsfrom water from German rivers. Belgium-based A-B InBev's U.S.headquarters is in St. Louis.

While the lawsuit was pending, A-B changed Beck's beer labels andpackaging brewed in the U.S. to prominently say "Brewed in theU.S.A." or "Product of U.S.A."

A federal judge on June 23 gave preliminary approval for aproposed class action settlement that includes a refund for Beck'scustomers. A final approval hearing is set for Oct. 20.

As part of the settlement, A-B denied any wrongdoing but agreed toissue refunds to customers who bought Beck's beer brewed in theU.S. beginning May 1, 2011. Those who submit receipts from Beck'sbeer purchases will be able to receive a refund of 50 cents persix-pack, up to a maximum of $50 per household. Reimbursement forthose without receipts is capped at $12. Claims can be submittedvia a website that will be created, according to court documents.

Each of the three plaintiffs will receive up to $5,000 forrepresenting the class. Additionally, A-B agreed to payattorney's fees in the case up to $3.5 million.

"We're pleased that the plaintiffs were able to resolve thisdispute and we look forward to the final approval hearing andgetting these benefits to the class of Beck's beer consumers,"said Tucker Ronzetti -- tr@kttlaw.com -- an attorney with Miamilaw firm Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton who represents the customerswho sued A-B.

A-B says it reached a compromise in the labeling case.

"We believe our labeling, packaging and marketing of Beck's havealways been truthful, transparent and in compliance with all legalrequirements," Jorn Socquet, vice president of marketing at A-B,said in a press release. "A-B brews Beck's to the highest-qualitystandards, and is proud to employ some of the finest Americanbrewmasters to produce Beck's for the U.S. market."

Mr. Ronzetti's law firm also represented plaintiffs in anotherrecent lawsuit that alleged A-B deceived consumers by not clearlystating on its packaging that Kirin Ichiban and Kirin LightJapanese-style pilsners sold in the U.S. were brewed domesticallyinstead of Japan. That class action lawsuit also resulted in asettlement that included a refund for customers.

ARCH COAL: Faces "Bush" Suit Over Imprudent Investment Option-------------------------------------------------------------Elmer Bush, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated v. ARCH Coal, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-01026 (E.D.Mo., June 30, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for thealleged breach of fiduciary duty, specifically by continuing tooffer Arch Coal Stock as an investment option when it was nolonger a prudent investment for the Plan.

ARCH Coal, Inc. is a domestic coal company that derivessubstantially all of its revenue from mining and selling coal topower plants, steel mills, and industrial facilities.

Certain vehicles may have been manufactured with an incorrectsynchronization valve. If the driver were to release the parkbrake without first firmly applying the service brake, the parkbrake could subsequently engage unexpectedly while the vehicle isin motion, at any speed. An unintended park brake applicationwithout brake light illumination would result, which couldincrease the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage toproperty. Correction: Dealers will install a park brakesynchronization valve which will prevent the application of thepark brake under those circumstances.

The product subject to recall bears the establishment number "P-276" inside the USDA mark of inspection. This product was shippedto Sam's Club retail stores in Illinois, Minnesota and Wisconsin.The product subject to recall has not been available for retailsales since June 26, 2015; however, FSIS suspects that consumersmay have this item in their freezers.

FSIS was notified of a cluster of Salmonella Enteritidis illnesseson June 24, 2015. Working in conjunction with Minnesota StateDepartments of Health and Agriculture, FSIS determined that thereis a link between the Chicken Kiev product from Barber Foods andthis illness cluster. Based on epidemiological evidence andtraceback investigations, four case-patients have been identifiedin Minnesota with illness onset dates ranging from April 5, 2015to June 8, 2015 that link to the specific Barber Foods product.FSIS continues to work with the Minnesota Departments of Healthand Agriculture as well as the Centers for Disease Control andPrevention on this investigation.

Consumption of food contaminated with Salmonella can causesalmonellosis, one of the most common bacterial foodborneillnesses. The most common symptoms of salmonellosis are diarrhea,abdominal cramps, and fever within 12 to 72 hours after exposureto the organism. The illness usually lasts 4 to 7 days. Mostpeople recover without treatment. In some persons, however, thediarrhea may be so severe that the patient needs to behospitalized. Older adults, infants, and persons with weakenedimmune systems are more likely to develop a severe illness.Individuals concerned about an illness should contact their healthcare provider.

FSIS and the company are concerned that some product may be inconsumers' freezers. Although the product subject to recall mayappear to be cooked, this product is in fact uncooked (raw) andshould be handled carefully to avoid cross-contamination in thekitchen. Particular attention needs to be paid to safely prepareand cook these raw poultry products to a temperature of 165ø Fchecking at the center, the thickest part and the surface of theproduct.

This frozen, raw, stuffed chicken product was labeled withinstructions identifying that the product was raw and includedcooking instructions for preparation. Some case-patients reportedfollowing the cooking instructions on the label and using a foodthermometer to confirm that the recommended temperature wasachieved. Therefore, FSIS advises all consumers to treat thisproduct like a raw chicken product. Hands and any surfaces,including surfaces that may have breading dislodged from theproduct, should be cleaned after contact with this raw product.Also, keep raw poultry away from other food that will not becooked. Use one cutting board for raw poultry and a separate onefor fresh produce and cooked foods.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verifyrecalling firms notify their customers of the recall and thatsteps are taken to make certain that the product is no longeravailable to consumers. When available, the retail distributionlist(s) will be posted on the FSIS website atwww.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Consumers with questions can contact the company directly at (844)564-5555. Media with questions can contact Laura Phillips, MediaRelations Spokesperson, at (513) 381-8347.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSISvirtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov orvia smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat andPoultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available inEnglish and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safetymessages are available 24 hours a day. The online ElectronicConsumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours aday at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.

BARCLAYS BANK: California Water Utility Files Class Action----------------------------------------------------------Reuters reports that a California water utility filed a classaction lawsuit on June 23 to recoup losses in the electric marketthat it blames on Barclays Bank Plc, which the U.S. governmentfined $453 million in 2013 for manipulating electricity prices.

Three swaps participants, BlueMountain Capital Management LLC,Citadel LLC and Pacific Investment Management Co., or Pimco,received subpoenas in recent months under an investor lawsuitalleging anticompetitive practices by the banks and industrygroups, according to people familiar with the matter. Nowrongdoing is alleged on the part of the firms receiving thesubpoenas.

The investor lawsuit, brought in 2014 by a series of retirementand pension funds in a federal district court in New York, accuses12 banks, data provider Markit Group Ltd. and the InternationalSwaps and Derivatives Association, a trade group, of conspiring toblock competing providers and exchange trading in the credit-default-swaps market.

Representatives for the banks, Markit and ISDA declined tocomment.

Credit-default swaps are insurance-like contracts designed tocompensate users for debt defaults. The market as of December hada notional value of $16.4 trillion, down from a peak of $58trillion in 2007.

The subpoenas mark the latest attempt by investors to wringdamages out of banks dealing in credit-default swaps. The JusticeDepartment confirmed in 2009 that it had opened a probe into thetrading practices and clearing and information services supportingcredit derivatives, but hasn't brought any charges.

Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., a Wall Street entity controlledby big banks, also was subpoenaed in the investor lawsuit, some ofthe people familiar said. It isn't a defendant in the suit.

A spokesman for Citadel said, "Citadel is not under investigationfor anything and the subpoenas were sent to the firm because wemight have information that is useful to the investigation orlawsuit." Representatives for DTCC, BlueMountain and Pimcodeclined to comment.

Chicago-based Citadel was subpoenaed because of the firm's attemptto launch a trading platform for credit swaps called "CMDX" withCME Group Inc. in 2008, the people said. The lawsuit alleges thateffort was thwarted by the defendant banks in the case.BlueMountain and Pimco were subpoenaed for their founding role inthe CMDX venture, the people said. Six years ago, one ofBlueMountain's executives, Samuel Cole, sent a widely circulatedemail accusing banks of "oligopolistic dominance" in the swapsmarket. Mr. Cole has since left the firm.

In the Justice Department probe, federal prosecutors sent civilinvestigative demand notices to BlueMountain, DTCC, Citadel andPimco, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.CMDX and CME Group also were subpoenaed by the Justice Departmentin 2009, the documents show.

That case remains open, a Justice Department spokesman said.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs this month started taking hundreds ofdepositions from parties in the suit, said Daniel Brockett --danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com -- partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart& Sullivan LLP and lead lawyer for the plaintiffs.

He declined to specify the extent of damages that would be sought,but said plaintiffs are seeking an amount in the billions ofdollars. The investors plan to ask the court to certify the groupfor class-action status by a late August deadline, he said.

The plaintiffs allege that banks, from 2008 to 2013, conspired toblock changes in the credit-derivatives markets, includinglicensing of intellectual property that was necessary for newentrants to compete, and the emergence of exchange trading incredit swaps.

The defendants in court transcripts have said they intend todevelop evidence that exchange trading for credit-default swapswouldn't have taken off at the time because there was too littledemand.

The investor case regarding credit-default swaps is before U.S.District Judge Denise Cote, who in May ruled that the U.S. unit ofNomura Holdings Inc. misled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac whenselling them mortgage bonds before the financial crisis.

BUDDYZ MCHENRY: Faces "Miller" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime----------------------------------------------------------------Michael Miller, on behalf of himself and all other personssimilarly situated v. Buddyz McHenry, Inc., and John Beuckens,Case No. 3:15-cv-50151 (N.D. Ill., June 30, 2015), is broughtagainst the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for workin excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a pizza restaurant located at 1138N. Green St., McHenry, Illinois.

CAPITAL ONE: Lieff Cabraser Defends $75.5MM Robocall Settlement---------------------------------------------------------------Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that Ted Frank of thenonprofit Center for Class Action Fairness (CCAF) requires hisclients to pledge in their retainer agreements that they're notlooking for financial payoffs in bringing objections to proposedclass settlements. As Mr. Frank explained in an extraordinarydeclaration at the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the purposeof the provision is to distinguish Frank and his nonprofit from"professional objectors" -- lawyers and clients who fileobjections to big class action settlements in the hope that classcounsel will pay them to go away. Since founding the Center forClass Action Fairness in 2009, Mr. Frank has said his motive is tocorrect class action abuses for his clients and other classmembers, not to help clients win extortionate payoffs.

But filings at the 7th Circuit, in the appeal of a fee award in a$75.5 million settlement of allegations that Capital One violatedthe Telephone Consumers Protection Act in debt collectionrobocalls, reveal a closer business relationship than waspreviously known between Mr. Frank and Christopher Bandas of theBandas Law Firm, a plaintiffs' lawyer and frequent class actionobjector. Beginning in 2013, Mr. Frank has received regular feesfrom Mr. Bandas -- a total of about $250,000, according to Mr.Frank's declaration. At first, Mr. Frank contracted for a pieceof Mr. Bandas' share of proceeds from resolved cases in which Mr.Frank was a consultant. The two subsequently revised theiragreement to provide Mr. Frank with a minimum monthly payment forhis work on Mr. Bandas' behalf.

Mr. Frank said he made the deal with Mr. Bandas, with the approvalof his nonprofit's board, because he believed it was in theCenter's interests, especially after Mr. Frank argued and won a7th Circuit appeal in Eubank v. Pella, one of Mr. Bandas' cases."I took a pay cut from the Center and the Center used the savingsto hire expert witnesses and attorneys to bring more ambitiousobjections," Mr. Frank said in his declaration. "Mr. Bandashelped wrangle objectors in other CCAF cases to reduce cacophonyin oral arguments, and, until this case, did not interfere withCCAF cases or clients. I understood that my pay from Mr. Bandaswas made possible and would not have occurred without Mr. Bandasprofitably settling cases where I was not counsel of record, butrationalized accepting that money because of the benefit to caselaw of victories like Eubank that might not have occurred if I wasnot assisting Mr. Bandas."

Messrs. Frank and Bandas have now parted ways, in a turn of eventsMr. Frank called "lurid, complex and Grishamesque" in a June 10filing at the 7th Circuit in the Capital One case. There's a moreimportant reason to write about the Capital One appeal: It exposessecret dealmaking among plaintiffs' lawyers that pretty muchconfirms the dark suspicions of class action detractors.

On June 19, Mr. Bandas filed a petition for a temporaryrestraining order and preliminary injunction against Mr. Frank instate court in Texas. The Nueces County court docket indicatesthe TRO was granted but Mr. Bandas and his counsel didn't respondto my requests to see the signed order. Mr. Frank said in anemail that he planned to file a brief on June 22 addressing theBandas allegation. He declined additional comment except to say,"I'm quite confident that I've done nothing wrong."

Class counsel in the Capital One case, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &Bernstein, filed a brief on June 18 defending the $75.5 millionsettlement and its $16 million fee award, but was expected torespond specifically to Mr. Frank's allegations. Lieff partnerJonathan Selbin declined to comment in advance of that filing.

Mr. Frank's client in the Capital One case, Jeffrey Collins, wasone of a handful of objectors who appealed approval of thesettlement to the 7th Circuit. Two objectors protested the entiresettlement. Three, including Mr. Frank's client, objected only toLieff Cabraser's fee award. The other fee objectors wererepresented by Frank's business partner Bandas and another serialobjectors' lawyer, Darrell Palmer, who has retained Mr. Frank towrite briefs and present oral arguments. Messrs. Bandas andPalmer joined Frank's 7th Circuit brief protesting LieffCabraser's fee award on May 4.

But then, according to Mr. Frank's June 10 motion to withdraw asCollins' counsel, Mr. Bandas approached a Lieff Cabraser lawyer,claiming he could settle all of the objectors' appeals. On June4, according to Mr. Frank's motion, Lieff Cabraser made asettlement offer to Mr. Bandas, with whom the firm had previouslymade a deal to settle objectors' appeals in another big TCPA casein April.

Mr. Bandas told Mr. Frank that Mr. Frank's client would receive$25,000 if he agreed to drop his appeal. "I jokingly said to Mr.Bandas that I wondered whether this was a settlement offer comingfrom him, rather than from class counsel," Mr. Frank said in hisdeclaration. "He became very defensive, but also said that if theoffer had been from him, he would have offered $100,000 to makesure there was no chance Mr. Collins would decline the offer."Mr. Frank said Mr. Bandas' comment led him to believe Mr. Bandas"is being offered at least $200,000, and likely much more, todismiss his appeal."

Mr. Frank said he terminated his own consulting arrangement withMr. Bandas on June 4. His relationship with Mr. Collins, he said,was unraveling but after he received a written settlement offer of$25,000 from Selbin of Lieff Cabraser, Mr. Frank conveyed theoffer to Collins. Frank called the settlement offer "repugnant"and said it breached Collins' retainer agreement. Mr. Collins,however, wanted to take the money, and, according to Mr. Frank,legal ethics required him to accept the offer on his client'sbehalf.

Mr. Frank said when he wrote to inform Mr. Selbin of Mr. Collins'decision, "I noted to Mr. Selbin that his offer to Mr. Collins wasunethical," Mr. Frank said in his declaration. "He responded inwriting that 'I would be happy for every aspect of this to bereviewed by the 7th Circuit or district court, as we have doneabsolutely nothing wrong.' In response, I asked Mr. Selbin todisclose what Lieff Cabraser had offered Mr. Bandas to settle hisappeal in this matter. Mr. Selbin refused to disclose thatinformation to me."

Mr. Frank filed a motion at the 7th Circuit to dismissMr. Collins' appeal, to withdraw as Mr. Collins' counsel, and tobe appointed as a guardian of the Capital One class. Thefollowing day, 7th Circuit Judge Michael Kanne ordered a responsefrom Lieff Cabraser. Mr. Bandas, meanwhile, went to Texas statecourt to restrain Mr. Frank.

CARPENTER CO: To Settle Polyurethane Price-Fixing Class Action--------------------------------------------------------------Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Carpenter Co.,Leggett & Platt Inc., Mohawk Inc. and three other makers ofpolyurethane foam agreed to pay as much as $128.5 million tosettle lawsuits accusing them of conspiring to fix prices.

The preliminary settlements with so-called indirect purchaserswere disclosed on June 19 in the federal court in Toledo, Ohio,and require court approval.

Earlier settlements with other groups of plaintiffs in thenationwide litigation totaled $433.1 million.

Polyurethane foam is used as cushioning and insulation to makesuch products as automobile seats, carpet underlay and furniture.Producers of such items accused foam manufacturers of violatingthe federal Sherman antitrust law by conspiring to coordinate thetiming and size of price increases.

According to court papers, the latest settlements included:

$63.5 million from Carpenter, $26.5 million from Leggett, $16 million from Mohawk, as much as $10.25 million from Hickory Springs Manufacturing Co, $9.5 million from Woodbridge Foam Corp and $2.75 million from Vitafoam Inc.

The accords cover purchasers of products containing flexiblepolyurethane foam since Jan. 1, 1999. These purchasers won class-action status in April 2014.

Part of the litigation continues, and a trial is scheduledto begin in October, court papers show.

Carpenter did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Marvin Miller, a lawyer for the indirect purchasers, declined tocomment.

John Reid Blackwell, writing for Richmond Times-Dispatch, reportsthat Henrico County-based Carpenter, one of the world's largestsuppliers of foams and polyester fibers used in mattresses,pillows, sofas, car seats and other durable goods, did not admitany wrongdoing, according to documents filed in U.S. DistrictCourt in Toledo, Ohio.

Carpenter and eight other makers of foam mattress and furniturematerials have agreed to pay nearly $400 million to settle thelawsuits that accused the companies of conspiring to fix prices.The privately held company's settlement is for cases related toindirect purchasers of its foam products, industry publicationFurniture Today reported.

The company declined to comment, according to a spokesman forRichmond-based McGuireWoods LLP, which is representing Carpenter.The Chicago lawyer representing the buyers of the foam productsdid not return phone calls.

Several lawsuits were filed in 2010 seeking class action statusand alleging price-fixing in the foam industry. In July 2010, theFBI raided offices of Carpenter and other manufacturers to obtaindocuments.

It is the second time that Carpenter has agreed to a settlement asa result of price-fixing allegations. In November, the companyagreed to pay $108 million to settle a lawsuit brought by variousdirect buyers who make products containing foam, federal courtdocuments show.

The new settlement with indirect buyers calls for eachmanufacturer of foam to place millions of dollars in variousescrow funds that can be accessed by companies that purchased thefoam between Jan. 1, 1999, and July 30, 2010.

Carpenter agreed to deposit $20 million of its settlement amountinto an escrow account in May, court records show. The companyalso agreed to deposit the balance, $43.5 million, to an escrowaccount within 10 days of the final approval of the settlement.A final hearing is set for Oct. 9.

The settlement puts to rest claims brought by hotel chains andother indirect buyers of polyurethane foam products such ascarpet, bedding and upholstered furniture, Furniture Todayreported. That group will receive $128.5 million from sixpolyurethane foam producers including Carpenter.

The other group, primarily foam fabricators and packagingcompanies, will receive $266.5 million from six foam producers,including three who also settled with the first group.

The plaintiffs accused Carpenter and other manufacturers of a"conspiracy" to "raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize prices andallocate territories or customers for flexible polyurethane foamand flexible polyurethane foam products," court records show.Carpenter agreed to the settlement "in order to avoid the costs,expenses, risk, and burden of further litigation," according tocourt documents.

Carpenter, founded in 1948, designs most of its sleep products ata center off Jefferson Davis Highway in South Richmond.

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Fed. Court Retains Subject Matter Jurisdiction------------------------------------------------------------------Tim J. St. George, David M. Gettings, Alan D. Wingfield and DavidN. Anthony of Troutman Sanders report that in In Touch Concepts,Inc. d/b/a ZCOM v. Cellco Partnership, the Second Circuit joinedthe Seventh Circuit in holding that a federal court retainssubject matter jurisdiction over a case that had previously beenremoved to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act("CAFA"), even after the plaintiff amended the complaint to removethe class action allegations.

In reaching this decision, the Second Circuit relied on cases suchas Rockwell International Corp. v. United States (2007), where theSupreme Court held that the original complaint determines subjectmatter jurisdiction in cases that had been removed on federalquestion grounds. The Second Circuit extended the logic of thatholding to cases that were removed under CAFA, holding: "Afterproper removal to federal court, post-removal amendments generallydo not destroy statutory subject matter jurisdiction."

The decision in In Touch Concepts makes it clear within the SecondCircuit that class action plaintiffs cannot negate federal courtjurisdiction after CAFA removal simply by dropping the classaction allegations from a complaint. This decision provideslitigants with additional certainty that their case, once removedunder CAFA, will remain in federal court for resolution on themerits. It also may provide support for analogous circumstanceswhere plaintiffs attempt to defeat removal in the first instanceby stipulating to damages below the CAFA jurisdictional thresholdof $5 million. That issue, however, was not before the SecondCircuit.

CHEETAHS: Strip Club Dancers File Minimum Wage Class Action-----------------------------------------------------------Dorian Hargrove, writing for San Diego Reader, reports that in aclass-action lawsuit filed June 22 against Kearny Mesa strip jointCheetahs, a former dancer says the club should be paying thetalent a minimum wage.

Jasmine Hayes, who worked at the club for over a year (from 2011to 2012), accuses Cheetahs owner Suzanne Coe and staff ofviolating the labor code by failing to pay standard minimum wages.

Cheetahs requires dancers to pay a "house fee" ranging from $40 to$80 per night, depending on the shift. Dancers must also tip thedeejay, the door person, and the floor manager a percentage of thetips made from private dances. If the tips don't cover the housefee, dancers are asked to stay to clean the club after the doorsclose.

The club, claims the lawsuit, skirts the labor-code requirementsby illegally calling dancers "independent contractors." But,according to Ms. Hayes's attorneys, the "independent contractor"designation doesn't work because there exists an economicrelationship between the dancer and the club.

". . . [A]s a matter of economic reality, Hayes and all otherclass members are not in business for themselves and trulyindependent, but rather are economically dependent upon findingemployment in others, namely Cheetahs. The dancers are notengaged in occupations or businesses distinct from that of[Cheetahs]. Rather, their work and presence is integral to [theclub's] success. [Cheetahs] obtains guests who desire exotic danceentertainment and provide the workers who conduct the exotic danceservices on behalf of Cheetahs. Defendants retain pervasivecontrol over the club operation as a whole, and the dancers'duties are a core, vital function of the operation."

In addition to dancers and the club being "economically dependent"on one another, dancers must follow strict guidelines,characteristic of an employee-employer relationship. Thoseguidelines include locker use, tipping policies, and style ofdancing. Managers at the club also impact the dancers' jobs bysetting prices on private dances and selecting the music andoverall theme.

"Hayes and class members' economic status is inextricably linkedto those conditions over which [Cheetahs has] complete control.Ms. Hayes and other members of the class are completely dependenton [Cheetahs] for their earnings. In sum, the totality of thecircumstances surrounding the employment relationship between[club] and the dancers . . . demonstrate that [the club] sets theterms and conditions of the class members' work -- the hallmark ofeconomic dependence."

Ms. Hayes estimates loss of wages and attorneys' fees to be under$75,000; that amount will increase if additional dancers join theclass-action lawsuit.

Cheetahs manager Rich Buontantony says, "The women are independentcontractors. When we hire an entertainer, they are given thechoice of being an employee or a space lessee, much like ahairdresser. As an independent contractor, the girl comes andgoes as she pleases, basically does what she wants whereas, anemployee comes in set hours, dances who we tell them to dance for,and so forth. The women I have here prefer to be independentcontractors."

Choice Canning Company Inc. is recalling Tastee Choice brandShrimp Sorrentino and Shrimp Fried Rice from the marketplacebecause they may contain milk and gluten which are not declared onthe label. People with an allergy to milk or sensitivity to glutenshould not consume the recalled products described below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalledproducts should be thrown out or returned to the store where theywere purchased.

If you have an allergy to milk or sensitivity to gluten, do notconsume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with theconsumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency(CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safetyinvestigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. Ifother high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify thepublic through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled productsfrom the marketplace.

Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ----------Tastee ShrimpChoice Sorrentino 680 g All codes where 7 46167 84001 0 milk is not declared on the label.Tastee ShrimpChoice Fried Rice 680 g All codes where 7 46167 84004 1 milk and gluten are not declared on the label.

CHRYSLER: Aware of Leaky Sunroofs, Plaintiffs' Lawyers Claims-------------------------------------------------------------Jenna Reed, writing for glassBYTES.com reports that "Chrysler hasknown about its leaky sunroofs for years . . . Chrysler failed toaddress the issue," write attorneys for six Chrysler owners inresponse to the automaker's motion to dismiss a nationwide classaction lawsuit. The owners have sued the automaker in the U.S.District Court of New Jersey over alleged sunroof issues.

"Since at least 1999, Chrysler's factory installed sunroofs haveleaked inside the vehicles of plaintiffs and thousands ofpurchasers and lessees. . . . It [Chrysler] has disseminatedcompany-wide technical service bulletins and rapid responsetransmittals since 1999," according to court documents. "However,maintenance booklets, promotional material and other Chrysler saleand lease documents failed to disclose that the sunroofs and othercomponents required inspections and special maintenance. Chrysleralso failed to disclose that its substandard sunroofs would leakeven in the lightest rain shower."

Chrysler failed to address the issue with owners, plaintiffs say.

"When plaintiffs and others sought repairs during the warrantyperiod, Chrysler denied coverage, pointing to a 'maintenanceproblem' or 'environmental issue' or advising not to 'park undertrees' or 'drive down dirt roads.' When Chrysler attemptedwarranty repairs, it provided at best, temporary and ineffectualfixes to get the vehicles to limp past the three-year, 36,000-milewarranty duration," according to court documents. "Chrysler thenwashed its hands, disclaiming liability and leaving plaintiffs andothers to bear their own repairs."

In response to Chrysler's motion to dismiss, attorneys write,"Plaintiffs respectfully that the court deny Chrysler's motion todismiss in its entirety."

On certain vehicles, the rear suspension lower control arm(s)could fracture due to incorrect heat treatment duringmanufacturing. A fractured suspension lower control arm couldresult in a loss of vehicle control and a crash causing injuryand/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will inspect, and ifnecessary, replace the rear lower control arms.

DOTHAN, AL: Changes Jail Release Rules Amid Class Action--------------------------------------------------------DothanEagle.com reports that the City of Dothan has implementedchanges to how inmates at the city jail can be released in thewake of the recent filing of a class action lawsuit against thecity.

Federal court records show a filing made by Dothan City AttorneyLen White claims the city believes a recently filed class-actionlawsuit against the city is due to be dismissed or moot becausethe issues were either already being addressed or are now beingaddressed after recent changes implemented on June 19.

The class action lawsuit was filed by 56-year-old Anthony Cooper,and his two lawyers, in connection to how the city's bail bondsystem has been set up for people charged with misdemeanors andtraffic offenses and booked into the city jail. Records show Mr.Cooper has challenged the use of fixed secured bail amounts usedto detain the poor on minor misdemeanor offenses. The lawsuit wasfiled by Mr. Cooper's two lawyers, Mitch McGuire, of Montgomery,and Alec Karakatsanis, the co-founder of the Washington D.C. groupEqual Justice Under Law.

Mr. Cooper's lawyers also filed a temporary restraining order,which the court granted in an effort to get their client releasedfrom the Dothan City Jail.

"The judge has found there was a need to restrain the city fromkeeping my client in jail," Mr. McGuire said. "He ordered myclient's immediate release."

Mr. White filed a response to Mr. Cooper's lawsuit, which claimedpolice arrested Cooper after he was found unconscious andintoxicated at the Dothan Greyhound Bus terminal around 1:00 a.m.on June 13. Mr. White's filing said Cooper's $300 bail amount wasset within the state's schedule and guidelines.

Mr. Cooper was released from jail, per the federal judge's orderon June 18.

According to the City of Dothan's response to the lawsuit, thecity implemented several changes as of Friday, June 19.As of June 19, the Dothan Municipal Court began holding hearingswithin 48 hours for anyone who had not taken advantage of thethree bail options, which included property bond, bail bonding(through a company) or a cash bond.

The Dothan municipal judge also issued a standing order allowingoffering additional options of release for people jailed on afailure to appear in court charge. People jailed on a failure toappear can now post bail through a property bond and bail bond(company), along with the previously required cash bond.

The municipal court also issued an order permitting access to thecourtroom.

Mr. White's filing also contended these changes, along withactions already regularly taken by the municipal court, wouldremedy any alleged constitutional violations raised by Cooper andhis lawyers.

Class-action lawsuit

Issues from the lawsuit were set to be heard in court at a hearingon June 26 at the federal courthouse in Montgomery.

The lawsuit claimed Mr. Cooper was told he would not be releasedunless he paid the standard $300 bail amount for publicintoxication charges. The lawsuit also said Mr. Cooper wasindigent, is illiterate, survives solely on Social Securitybenefits and could not afford to post his bail. Mr. Cooper wastold the earliest he would be brought to court was nearly a weekafter his arrest on Thursday, June 18 for its weekly court date.

The lawsuit said because of the City of Dothan doesn't deviatefrom the secured bail system, anyone arrested who is too poor topay the pre-set secured bail could spend as many as seven days injail before their first possible court appearance.

The lawsuit said unlike many other cities, Dothan doesn't allowpeople arrested to be released on their own recognizance or withan unsecured bond, in which a person would be released bypromising to pay the scheduled bail amount if they fail to appearin court. The lawsuit alleged the city instead requires thepayment amount to be made up front, either in cash or through abail bonding company.

"We believe the City of Dothan is participating in flagrant,unconstitiutional violations against the indigent," Mr. McGuiresaid.

Mr. McGuire said several cities across Alabama already use theunsecured or signature bail bonding system such as Birmingham.Messrs. McGuire and Karakatsanis also both filed a similar lawsuitagainst the City of Clanton. As a result, the city agreed tochange how they do their bail bonding system for misdemeanorcrimes.

"If an individual like my client, who is indigent, can't affordthis small amount of bail money they must sit in jail for up toseven days until the next court session," Mr. McGuire said."Meanwhile someone who has money can buy their way out of jail inmoments. Indigent individuals must languish in jail until eitherfriends or family can come up with the money to bail them out oruntil the next court date."

Mr. McGuire said they filed the lawsuit in an effort to get anorder from the court for the City of Dothan to change their bailbonding procedures.

"There is very clear Supreme Court precedent that says that typeof activity is unconstitutional, keeping individuals on minormisdemeanors in jail simply because they cannot afford to bondthemselves out," Mr. McGuire said.

DUKE UNIVERSITY: Radiologists Sue Over UNC No-Hire Agreement------------------------------------------------------------Abigail Xie, writing for The Chronicle, reports that a radiologistemployed by Duke has filed a class action lawsuit against theUniversity and Duke University Health System regarding an allegedno-hire agreement with the University of North Carolina.

Dr. Danielle Seaman, an assistant professor of radiology since2011, claims she was denied a parallel position as an assistantprofessor at the UNC School of Medicine due to an illegalagreement between Duke and UNC prohibiting the lateral hiring ofeach other's medical staff and faculty. The suit -- filed June 9in the United States District Court for the Middle District ofNorth Carolina -- contends that the no-hire agreement had the"intended and actual effect" of suppressing competition andemployee wages, therefore violating federal and state anti-trustlaws.

According to the case file, the agreement prevented employees ofeach medical school from getting equivalent jobs at the otherschool -- with the only exception being if the faculty or staffmember would receive an immediate promotion at the otheruniversity. For example, an assistant professor at Duke could notbe hired into a similar position at UNC unless promoted to thehigher "associate professor" rank, and full "professors" alreadyat the highest rank could not be hired by the other university atall. The suit claims that the alleged agreement was formed severalyears ago by Nancy Andrews, dean of the Duke School of Medicine,and William Roper, dean of the UNC Chapel Hill School of Medicine.It also alleges the involvement of unspecified senioradministrators and deans at Duke and unnamed co-conspirators fromUNC.

Ms. Seaman had been in email communication with UNC's Chief ofCardiothoracic Imaging beginning in 2011, when she expressedinterest in a radiology position at the UNC School of Medicine,and the chief of the division encouraged her to apply, the casefile describes. In 2012, Ms. Seaman was invited to visit thecampus and toured the radiology department at UNC.

When Ms. Seaman expressed interest in the assistant professorposition again in early 2015, however, the chief responded in anemail by saying he had just received confirmation that "lateralmoves of faculty between Duke and UNC are not permitted" as per a"guideline" set by the schools' deans.

In a later email, the chief also described to Ms. Seaman thereason the agreement was created -- Duke had tried several yearsago to recruit the entire bone marrow transplant team from UNC,and UNC was forced to pay them a large retention package to keepthem.

In the suit, which cites these email exchanges, the UNC Chief ofCardiothoracic Imaging is unnamed. The current chief is Dr. PaulMolina.

Ms. Seaman also states that she received confirmation of the no-hire agreement's existence from a colleague in the UNC radiologydepartment.

In this antitrust lawsuit, she is being represented by LieffCabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, the law firm that alsoprosecuted Google, Inc., Apple, Inc., Intel Corp. and otherprominent California tech companies in a high-profile class-actionsuit. The firm secured preliminary approval of a $415 millionsettlement with several of the tech companies in March.

The tech case, which began in 2011, found that the companies hadreached similar agreements in which no cold calling -- or activesoliciting -- of each other's employees was allowed, althoughworkers could still apply for jobs at the other companies.Although these antitrust cases are similar, the alleged agreementbetween Duke and UNC puts stricter limits on their medicalemployees because lateral movement between the schools would beprohibited.

Ms. Seaman has filed the lawsuit with proposed class-actionstatus, therefore filing it on behalf of all faculty members,physicians, nurses and other skilled medical employees who haveworked for Duke and UNC from Jan. 1, 2012 to the present. She isseeking an injunction declaring the no-hire agreement illegal andrestitution three times what all the employees have lost in theabsence of competitive hiring between the institutions.

Representatives from both Duke and UNC declined to comment onpending litigation.

ERIC CONN: Attorney Expands Class Action Over SSA Benefits Fraud----------------------------------------------------------------WSAZ reports that an attorney fighting to keep Social Securitybenefits for hundreds in the Tri-State is taking more action.Dozens gathered on June 22 at the Mountain Arts Center inPrestonsburg, Kentucky. Attorney Ned Pillersdorf is expanding hisclass action lawsuit to include all 1,500 people involved in acase of suspected fraud.

The lawsuit is against Attorney Eric C. Conn of Floyd County.Hundreds lost their Social Security disability benefits because ofsuspected fraud with medical evidence in their cases, which werehandled by Conn.

The Social Security Administration sent out letters in May to 900of Conn's clients, notifying them that their disability benefitswere suspended. Those benefits have since been temporarilyreinstated, but 1,500 could still face hearings and potentiallylose their benefits.

On top of the expanded lawsuit, Mr. Pillersdorf filed a newlawsuit on June 22 against Eric Conn and his law office on behalfof a woman who committed suicide. Mr. Pillersdorf said the womantook her own life after receiving the notice that her benefitswould be cut off.

He said she is the second person to take her own life as a resultof the actions of Conn and the Social Security Administration.

"In our view, it was foreseeable when they sent these letters outto so many vulnerable people that suicides would occur,"Mr. Pillersdorf said. "And tragically, we've had two suicides,several attempted suicides and at least one nervous breakdown."

Mr. Pillersdorf's legal team has also filed a complaint againstthe Social Security Administration on the behalf of the woman'sestate. As for potential hearings, Mr. Pillersdorf said he had a"combative" and "unproductive" meeting with the Social SecurityAdministration and received no answers about when these hearingswould be. Those who face hearings will need their medical recordsand lawyers.

Mr. Pillersdorf said approaching hearings, his clients are facingdifficulty finding their medical records, or being forced to pay$1 per page for copies of extensive medical reports. He is alsoworking with other legal teams to provide the 1,500 withrepresentation.

Under Social Security regulations, Mr. Pillersdorf said, lawyerscan't collect fees in this kind of case -- making it difficult tofind attorneys who will take on these clients. In an effort tokeep the hearings fair, Mr. Pillersdorf said his legal team hasamended the pending federal lawsuit to ask the federal judge toprovide potential compensation to attorneys.

A representative from AppalReD joined Mr. Pillersdorf on stage onJune 22 and asked the clients to be patient as they get back tothe hundreds who requested representation. He continued toencourage people to call AppalReD if they have not done so yet.

Meanwhile, Conn remains under a temporary restraining order,limiting the attorney's spending and banning him from destroyingevidence.

Mr. Pillersdorf said the restraining order is important to retainwhatever assets Conn has and any medical evidence in hispossession.

Mr. Conn's attorneys argued the case against him was unwarranted,calling it "guesswork."

The June 19 hearing was cut short and was set to resume at 11:00a.m. on June 24 in Floyd County Circuit Court.

ETSY INC: July 13 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set----------------------------------------------------------The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquiredsecurities of Etsy, Inc. between April 16, 2015 through May 10,2015.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit hasbeen commenced in the United States District Court for the EasternDistrict of New York. If you purchased or otherwise acquiredEtsy, Inc. securities between April 16, 2015 and May 10, 2015,your rights may be affected by this action. To get moreinformation go to:

HTTP://ZLK.9NL.COM/ETSY-ETSY

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.comor by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972.There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that during the class period Etsy failed todisclose that: (a) more than 5% of all merchandise for sale onEtsy's website were counterfeit or constituted trademark orcopyright infringement; (b) brands are increasingly pursuingsellers on Etsy's platform for trademark or copyrightinfringement, jeopardizing the Company's listing fees andcommissions; and (c) as a result, Etsy's public statements werematerially false and misleading.

If you suffered a loss in Etsy you have until July 13, 2015 torequest that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Yourability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve asa lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com-- is a national firm with offices in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C.The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise in prosecutingsecurities litigation involving financial fraud, representinginvestors throughout the nation in securities and shareholderlawsuits.

FEDERAL EXPRESS: 9th Cir. Refuses to Revive Overtime Class Action-----------------------------------------------------------------Kurt Orzeck and Brandon Lowrey, writing for Law360, report thatthe Ninth Circuit refused on June 22 to revive a putative classaction alleging Federal Express Corp. violated California overtimelaws, finding enough evidence that it didn't have a policylimiting what an employee could do with their time when they were"clocked-in" but not on-shift.

Affirming a lower court's denial of plaintiff and hourly employeeYvette Green's motion for class certification, the appeals judgessaid FedEx designees had testified that employees could leave theFedEx premises after clocking in as long as they returned and wereready to work by the time their shift started.

The district court in April 2013 determined there was nocompanywide policy requiring employees to punch in before thestart of their shift and stay at the worksite without payment fortheir preshift time.

The appeals court on June 22 held that, while some workers at theLos Angeles branch allegedly thought they couldn't leave thepremises after clocking in, employees at the San Diego officetestified they were free to leave the premises after clocking in.

"Taken together, this evidence demonstrates that the districtcourt's conclusion, that FedEx did not have a uniform policy thatautomatically placed all of the potential class members underFedEx's control as soon as they 'clocked in,' was not clearlyerroneous," the Ninth Circuit ruled.

FedEx employee Daniel Forrand first lodged a federal complaintagainst the company in September 2007, claiming FedEx had withheldovertime wages and denied meal breaks to thousands of employeesacross the state.

Along with Ara Karamian and Eugene Colon, Ms. Green joined thecase when it was transferred to the Central District of Californiain February 2008.

The appeals court said the case should have been stayed until theCalifornia Supreme Court ruled on the then-pending BrinkerRestaurant Corp. v. Superior Court case. That case was disposedin April, allowing the FedEx lawsuit to resume.

Earlier this month, during oral arguments in front of the NinthCircuit, Gwen Ellen Freeman -- gf@kpclegal.com -- of KnappPetersen & Clarke PC contended that the district court abused itsdiscretion by going directly to the merits of the case.

FedEx attorney Jeff Kelsey countered that the judge correctlyfound that there were too many individual factors at work to showFedEx had control over each and every worker during the disputedtime, saying there was no written policy and statements fromworkers indicated it was "a mixed bag."

The Ninth Circuit on June 22 ruled that, absent a policy thatprevented FedEx employees from using the time for their ownbenefit, Green couldn't show classwide control by FedEx. Andwithout demonstrating classwide control, individual fact inquiriesover whether FedEx controlled each employee would predominate overany common question, according to the June 22 decision.

The appeals judges further ruled that the district court alsodidn't abuse its discretion by refusing to certify a proposedclass of workers who were allegedly owed pay for working duringunpaid meal breaks. They said Green's common method of proof --electronic scans of packages during designated meal breaks --didn't show that FedEx knew or should have known that itsemployees were working during their break periods.

"FedEx had no obligation to sift through the volumes of electronicdata produced by the scanning devices to determine whether itsemployees were actually taking their authorized breaks," theopinion said.

The case is Yvette Green v. Federal Express Corp., case number 13-56093, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

GE SECURITY: Judge Rejects Plaintiffs' Vicarious Liability Theory-----------------------------------------------------------------Daniel S. Blynn, Esq. of Venable LLP, in an article for Law360,reports that while plaintiffs' attorneys seek to streamline thefiling of class actions under the Telephone Consumer ProtectionAct, a recent court decision serves as a reminder that there areclear limits to a plaintiff's ability to recover statutory damagesunder a theory of vicarious liability.

On May 18, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Central Districtof California awarded summary judgment to defendant UTC Fire &Security Americas Corporation Inc. in a putative TCPA classaction, finding that the security equipment manufacturer could notbe held vicariously liable for the actions of its authorizeddealers under any theory of agency. The decision marks a victoryfor companies that operate using a dealer or retailer network todistribute their products in a legal area that is a noted favoritefor class action attorneys and provides an example for howcompanies may avoid vicarious liability under the TCPA bycarefully structuring the way in which they authorize resellers touse and advertise their products.

In Makaron v. GE Security Manufacturing Inc.,[1] the plaintiffsbrought a class action against UTC, a manufacturer of residentialand commercial security equipment, and Security One Alarm Systems,a reseller of UTC's products. The class action alleged that UTCwas vicariously liable for unlawful autodialed and prerecordedvoice message calls placed to the plaintiffs by SOAS in violationof the TCPA.

The court closely examined the relationship between UTC and SOASto determine whether there was a principal-agent relationshipbetween the manufacturer and reseller. UTC sold its equipmentthrough independent distributors and "authorized dealers," who,then, resold to other businesses and consumers. It only marketedits products to other businesses. SOAS, acting as a home securitydealer and retailer, carried and sold UTC equipment and equipmentfrom other brands. SOAS entered into a "dealer agreement" tobecome an "authorized GE security dealer." UTC owned its ownbrand, Interlogix, and a license from GE trademark leasing, underwhich it could grant limited licensing rights to resellers for thepurposes of selling GE-branded security equipment. Under thisprogram, authorized dealers, such as SOAS, received a limitedlicense from UTC to use certain GE logos and trademarks but weresubject to certain contractual limitations, including thefollowing:

Complying with all applicable telemarketing laws.

SOAS was "not permitted to market as or 'on behalf of GE orInterlogix.'"

SOAS acknowledges and agreed "that it is not a spokesperson for GEsecurity and that dealer shall not take any actions, or fail totake any reasonable actions, that indicate to any third partiesthat dealer is authorized to speak on behalf of GE security."

The authorized dealers were described as independent contractorsand the agreement stated they "shall have no right or authority toassume or create any obligation or responsibility, express orimplied, on behalf of, on account of, or in the name of GEsecurity, or to legally bind GE security in any mannerwhatsoever."

While the supposedly unlawful phone calls were made by SOAS toadvertise UTC's products specifically, the court found that UTChad neither actual nor apparent authority over the marketing ofits security equipment after the equipment had been sold todistributors. The court first emphasized that UTC did not haveactual authority over the sales tactics of its third-partydistributors and dealers, as its licensing agreements did notpermit them to market "on behalf of" GE. Further, UTC'sinvolvement in the marketing process ended with the sale todistributors. UTC was not liable under apparent authority becauseit did not directly communicate with the end-consumers whoactually put the products to use. The court also found itunreasonable to conclude that the manufacturer had "manifested" toconsumers that SOAS was making calls on UTC's behalf. Anypotential "manifestations" were made to SOAS and other authorizeddealers; UTC did not communicate directly to consumers.

Makaron represents the most recent case in a line of decisions andguidance analyzing federal common law principles of agency. In2013, the Federal Communication Commission issued a declaratoryruling, finding that a seller only may be held liable forviolations committed by third parties that are agents of theseller under federal common law principles. Last year, in Thomasv. Taco Bell Corp.,[2] the Ninth Circuit similarly found that inaddition to traditional agency principles, the federal common lawprinciples of ratification and apparent liability could triggervicarious liability.

In Thomas, a text message was sent by a vendor engaged by anadvertising firm, which in turn had been hired by the Taco Bellfranchisors within the Chicago area. The Ninth Circuit affirmedthe lower court's decision that neither the local franchises, theadvertising firm, nor the vendor was an agent of Taco Bell, and asa result, like UTC in Makaron, Taco Bell could not be held liablefor the marketing actions of any of the aforementioned entities.

The FCC historically has levied hefty penalties for TCPAviolations. However, Makaron shows that companies, especiallythose that operate through authorized dealer networks, can helpsteer clear of TCPA liability by carefully controlling the mannerin which they authorize resellers and licensees to use theirproducts. For example, at a minimum, the relationship between theseller and third-party dealer should be formalized in a writtencontract that requires the dealer to comply with all applicabletelemarketing laws and regulations, and any dealermarketing/telemarketing guidelines that the seller may provide.(It is a good idea to require that the dealer comply with relevantFCC and Federal Trade Commission telemarketing guidance as well.)

Further, while not determinative of the agency issue, the contractalso should state explicitly that the dealer is not an employee oragent of the seller, but, rather, is acting as an independentcontractor. There also should be limits placed on how the dealermay represent itself and its relationship to the seller in itstelemarketing calls. Beyond contractual requirements andlimitations, companies should consider implementing atelemarketing compliance monitoring program. A strong, proactivecompliance program can do much to ensure that the seller avoidsregulatory scrutiny or receipt of a class action complaint in thefirst instance.

While it is often difficult for companies to ensure that itsproducts are marketed and telemarketed appropriately by itsauthorized third-party dealers without exerting so much controlthat those dealers become de facto agents, Makaron provides a verygood starting point.

On certain vehicles equipped with a power liftgate system, thegas-filled struts (which help to raise and support the liftgate)may prematurely wear. These vehicles have a Prop Rod Recoverysystem intended to accomplish a controlled, slow return of theliftgate to the closed position if the liftgate's gas struts areno longer capable of supporting the weight of the liftgate. Thevehicle would provide audible warnings and flash the tail lamps toindicate there is a problem. However, the liftgate's Prop RodRecovery system software may be unable to detect/stop a liftgatewith prematurely worn gas struts from falling too quickly afterthe liftgate is opened. This could allow the liftgate to dropsuddenly, placing anyone beneath or near the gate at risk ofinjury. Correction: Dealers will reprogram the power liftgateactuator motor ECU with a new software and will verify powerliftgate operation following the reprogram.

Certain vehicles may fail to conform to Canada Motor VehicleSafety Standard (CMVSS) 114 - Theft Protection and RollawayProtection, and CMVSS 208 - Occupant Crash Protection. The radiomay become inoperative, causing a no-chime condition and disablingthe audible warning if the key is in the ignition and the driver'sdoor is opened, or if a front outboard seat belt is not buckled. Aloss of the seat belt audible warning may increase the likelihoodof a front outboard occupant being unbelted, increasing the riskof injury in a crash. Similarly, the loss of an audible warningwhen a key is left in the ignition may increase the risk ofvehicle theft. Correction: Dealers are to program the radio withupdated software.

On certain vehicles, the connector module that controls the blowermotor speed in the heat/vent/air conditioning (HVAC) system couldoverheat under extended periods at high or medium-high blowerspeed. If this were to occur, it could result in the plasticaround the connector module melting by the heat generated,increasing the risk of fire resulting in injury and/or damage toproperty. Correction: Dealers will replace the female connectorand harness.

Brand Common name Size Code(s) on UPC name ----------- ---- product --- ----- ---------- Going Nuts Chocolate 1 count All codes where None Coconut Date sulphites are not Bar declared on the label. Going Nuts Coconut 600 g All codes where None Quinoa sulphites are not Granola declared on the label. Going Nuts Coconut 285 g All codes where None Curry Peanuts sulphites are not declared on the label. Going Nuts Coconut 330 g All codes where None Curry Peanuts sulphites are not declared on the label. Going Nuts Coconut 210 g All codes where None Almonds sulphites are not declared on the label. Going Nuts Coconut 425 g All codes where None Peanut Butter sulphites are not declared on the label. Going Nuts Chocolate 130 g All codes where None Coconut sulphites are not Hazelnuts declared on the label. Going Nuts Honey Sunrise 1 count All codes where None Granola Bar sulphites are not declared on the label. Going Nuts Chili Lime 215 g All codes where None Pepitas sulphites are not declared on the label. Going Nuts Coconut Cashew 425 g All codes where None Butter sulphites are not declared on the label. Going Nuts Coconut Crunch 400 g All codes where None Granola sulphites are not declared on the label. Going Nuts Coconut Hemp 1 count All codes where None Date Bar sulphites are not declared on the label. Going Nuts Crunchy Hemp 600 g All codes where None Granola sulphites are not declared on the label.

GOPHER RESOURCE: Faces "Droz" Suit in Fla. Over FCRA Violation--------------------------------------------------------------Samuel Droz, on behalf of himself and all similarly-situatedindividuals v. Gopher Resource, LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-01548 (M.D.Fla., June 30, 2015), is brought against the Defendant forviolation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

GREEN TREE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Carlisle" Suit Claims-------------------------------------------------------------Tammy Carlisle on behalf of herself and all others similarlysituated v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-02332-ODE(N.D. Ga., June 30, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant'spractice of making calls on the Plaintiff's cellular telephoneusing an automatic telephone dialing system and an artificial orprerecorded voice.

Green Tree Servicing, LLC is a Minnesota limited liability companythat is engaged in the business of collecting on promissory notesin default for creditors.

HARMAN INT'L: DC Circuit Court Reinstates Securities Fraud Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC on June 23 disclosed that theU.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit hasreversed the dismissal of a securities fraud class action againstHarman International Industries, Inc., and remanded it to the U.S.District Court for further proceedings. The Lead Plaintiff in thecase is Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System (APERS), whichis represented by Lead Counsel Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

The ruling issued on June 23 is significant in that it determinesthe scope of protection afforded by the so-called "safe-harbor"for forward-looking statements in the Private SecuritiesLitigation Reform Act (PSLRA) of 1995. Generally, forward-lookingstatements are insulated from liability when they are accompaniedby "meaningful" cautionary statements. The D.C. Circuit held thatcautionary statements are not "meaningful," however, when, as inthe case of certain of Harman's cautionary statements, they warnagainst risks that have already transpired or are misleading inlight of historical facts. This holding is a significant win forinvestors, since it means that defendants cannot invoke theprotection of the PSLRA's safe harbor when, despite boilerplatecautionary language, their statements nonetheless misleadinvestors.

The D.C. Circuit also held that contrary to defendants' arguments,their use of the words "very strong" to describe sales at Harmanwere plausibly understood by investors to be important and todescribe a "historical fact rather than unbridled corporateoptimism, i.e., immaterial puffery," and thus was actionable.

"We are pleased that the Circuit Court reversed the dismissal ofthis case and believe that it is the result Congress intended inenacting the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act," said CohenMilstein Managing Partner Steven J. Toll, who argued the appeal."Companies should not be allowed to use the PSLRA's safe harbor tomisrepresent facts with impunity, and the Circuit's opinion onJune 23 recognizes that."

Gail Stone, Executive Director of the Arkansas Public EmployeesRetirement System, added, "Protecting APERS' financial assets is akey priority and we are pleased that the D.C. Circuit's rulingwill allow us to continue to pursue these fraud claims on behalfof our beneficiaries and all the investors in the class. We alsocommend Cohen Milstein attorneys on their effective advocacy andperseverance on behalf of Harman investors."

Founded in 1969, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC --http://www.cohenmilstein.com-- is a national leader in plaintiffs' class action lawsuits and litigation. As one of thepremier firms in the country handling major complex cases, CohenMilstein, with 80 attorneys, has offices in Washington, D.C., NewYork, Philadelphia, Chicago, Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., and Denver,Colo.

Horizon allegedly paid the plaintiffs for CMT, but denied allclaims for E/M and PT on the grounds that its "bundling" practiceincorporated payments for all chiropractic treatments into a"global fee" for CMT. Horizon's denial of these claims wasautomatic, as was its denial of all appeals. Horizon'sexplanation of benefits ("EOB") stated that the claims for E/M andPT were denied because chiropractors were "not eligible" forpayment for those services. Plaintiffs sought relief forHorizon's denial of E/M and PT claims on the ground that Horizon'sbundling practice violated the Employee Retirement Income SecurityAct and breached its contracts.

Beginning its analysis, the court stated that the classcertification motion posed a simple concrete question: Can thecourt fairly and efficiently determine whether the bundling policyviolated the rights of the proposed classes, or do the individualinquiries that will be required to ultimately determine what, ifany, actual damages each class member gets, pose such anoverwhelming problem as to make class certification impracticaland unfair?

Granting class certification, the court explained that all of theclaims arise from common evidence, which began with the uniformdefinition of "therapeutic manipulation," a covered treatmentunder all Horizon plans that included E/M and PT. The court notedthat it was undisputed that Horizon's plan documents did notreference its bundling policy, which was only revealed only on EOBstatements as a payment made for CMT and a denial of claims forE/M and/or PT in instances when the provider administered CMT atthe same time. Not only was Horizon's denial of claims andappeals automatic and systematic, but it was also unrelated to anymedical criteria.

Plaintiffs alleged two ERISA theories of liability: (1) Horizon'sdenial of claims on the basis that chiropractors were not eligiblefor reimbursement for E/M and PT is false; and (2) Horizon'sdenial of all appeals violated the "full and fair review" ofappeals required by ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section 1133. Plaintiffs'contract claims, based upon the same evidence, allege that thebundling policy violated Horizon's contractual obligation to payfor "therapeutic manipulation," as defined in Horizon's plans.

Turning first to the Rule 23(a) analysis, the court found the fourelements of commonality, typicality, adequacy and numerosity weresatisfied because all class members suffered the same injury as aresult of being subjected to an improper claims denial practice,with a common question of whether the automatic denial under thebundling policy violated ERISA and/or New Jersey contract law.

Plaintiffs' claims are typical, the court explained, because allclass members submitted the same Form 1500 for CMT, E/M, and PT,and were paid for CMT only but denied payment for PT and E/M onthe grounds of chiropractor eligibility. As to Horizon's defensesthat its bundling policy was a "reasonable practice" consistentwith its legal obligations and supported by Horizon's providermanuals, the chiropractic industry literature and chiropracticindustry practice generally, the court noted that these defensesapplied to all of plaintiffs' allegations that the bundling policyviolated ERISA and state law, and were therefore consistent withclass adjudication. There was no doubt that the plaintiffs wereadequate representatives or as to the numerosity of the class.

Moving to the predominance analysis under Rule 23(b)(3), the courtrejected Horizon's contention that individualized issues wouldpredominate over the central and common question of the legalityof Horizon's bundling policy. The court noted that the varyinglanguage of the assignment of benefits forms obtained byindividual chiropractors from their patients was irrelevant,because all class members seeking payment submitted a Form 1500 toHorizon, which contained identical assignment language statingthat the patient "authorizes payment of medical benefits to theundersigned physician or supplier for the services describedbelow," and Horizon accepted all Form 1500 assignments. The courtnoted that the Form 1500 "creates a derivative right to sue forpayment under both ERISA and New Jersey contract law," and alsothat any anti-assignment clauses in Horizon's contracts with itsinsureds had been waived by Horizon because it acceptedassignments and made claims payments to the providers based uponthe submission of a Form 1500. The court stated, "It would bepatently unfair to allow the patient to assign his rights topayment to a provider but not let the provider sue for breach ofthe assigned contract for payment."

Further, Horizon's argument that claims might be denied forreasons other than the bundling policy was undermined by thelimited scope of relief sought on a classwide basis: an order thatHorizon reprocess the class members' claims, which the court foundnecessary in order to keep the class manageable. The court heldthat Horizon's proffered possible reasons for denying the claimswere all subordinate to the question of the bundling policy'slegality, and could be addressed in subsequent litigation. Thecourt also held that the ERISA classes could be certified underRule 23(b)(1)(B) because the determination of the bundlingpolicy's legality for the named plaintiffs would have the effectof determining its legality for all proposed class members, evenin the event of ruling in Horizon's favor.

What Are DeMaria's Takeaways?

First, a health care provider seeking to challenge an insurer'srepeated denials of its claims for treatment or services renderedmust be seeking payment for services covered by the expressdefinitional terms of the insurer's plans. That is a given. Ifthe claims that are systematically denied are not within thelanguage of the insurer's plans, there is no basis for the healthcare provider to challenge the systemic practice.

Second, to the extent that a health care insurer's claims reviewpolicy is unrelated to claim-specific medical criteria, but isinstead based upon a systematic interpretation of defined terms ofcovered treatment under its plans, such a policy may be subject tochallenge under ERISA on a classwide basis by health careproviders whose claims are denied. A uniform policy thatsystematically denies claims without regard to an individualizedapplication of medical criteria has the potential to impactparticipating and/or nonparticipating providers on a uniformbasis, irrespective of the medical issues arising with respect toindividual patients. A claim challenging such a policy isappropriate for handling on a classwide basis in order to avoidthe potential for inconsistent adjudications and to efficientlyadjudicate an issue that has a uniform adverse impact on similarlysituated providers.

Third, DeMaria clarifies that a key issue relating to the validityof a health care insurer's uniform claims handling policy iswhether the policy is included or articulated within the insurer'splan documents. The court specifically noted that Horizon'sbundling policy "appeared nowhere in any plan documents," butinstead was unilaterally implemented by Horizon sometime in the1990s, and disclosed on Horizon's EOB statements when it madepayments for CMT but denied payments for E/M and/or PT when theprovider administered CMT along with E/M and/or PT at the sametime. The fact that the challenged policy was not articulated inthe plan documents provided the basis for plaintiff's allegationsthat the defendant violated ERISA and state law.

Fourth, DeMaria supports the argument that health insurers'denials of claims based upon CPT codes may be invalid where theservices reflected in the CPT codes are within the policy coverageas set forth in the health insurers' plans, and the servicesprovided, along with the corresponding CPT codes, fall within thedefined coverage. In DeMaria, the insurer sought to limit paymentfor chiropractic treatment to one type of CPT-coded "therapeuticmanipulation" per patient visit, a limitation that wasinconsistent with the plan document definition of "therapeuticmanipulation" that included the three different types ofchiropractic services regularly provided by the class members.Whether through the practice of "bundling" or otherwise, aninsurer's rejection of payment for covered services would besubject to challenge under DeMaria where the coverage defined bythe plan documents includes multiple kinds of services as definedby separate CPT codes. The insurer's attempt to impose additionallimitations on claims not expressly set forth in the plan remainssubject to challenge under DeMaria.

Fifth, the possibility of future individualized damages issuesdoes not undermine class certification under DeMaria. Classcertification is appropriate to address the legality of a healthinsurer's uniform policy that results in the denial of benefitswithout regard to individual medical or other issues, and anyindividual issues as to damages may be addressed in subsequentproceedings. Therefore, provided that a plaintiff health careprovider can define the class question presented as the legalityof the insurer's uniform application of its claim policy, therecan be a cognizable claim for class certification under Rule 23.

Finally, DeMaria establishes that the differing anti-assignmentclauses in contracts between a health insurer and its insuredswill not be an impediment to standing for the health careprovider. Where an insurer has accepted Form 1500 assignments, ithas engaged in a course of dealing or waiver that precludes theinsurer from contesting the health care provider's standing tochallenge the insurer's systematic denial of claims.

DeMaria establishes a blueprint for health care providers toobtain class certification in order to challenge policies byhealth insurers that may systematically deny or reduce benefitspaid. Given the clear definition of the legal and factual issuesraised by the class question in DeMaria, it appears that thecourt's analysis rests on solid ground under Rule 23. Accordingly,health care providers seeking to challenge health insurers' claimspolicies may want to consider and follow DeMaria's approach toobtain class certification.

HOUSTON, TX: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Drainage Fee---------------------------------------------------------Bob Price, writing for TexasGOPVote, reports that a Texas lawyerhas filed a lawsuit, and is attempting to have it declared a classaction against the City of Houston, for the possibly illegalcollection of drainage fees. The fees are one of the results ofthe 2010 Prop 1 "Rain Tax" charter amendment election, which is indanger of being thrown out after a recent Texas Supreme Courtruling.

The lawsuit comes on the heels of the Texas Supreme Court'sopinion that the city misled voters about the drainage fee inballot language. The State's highest court sent the originallawsuit against the City on this matter back to the district courtin Houston for another hearing. In an article about thisdecision, Breitbart Texas reported a possible sharp financialdownfall" for the city if the court rules against the city as isexpected.

In the newest lawsuit, Houston attorney Andy Taylor is seeking toforce the City of Houston to reimburse residents who have beenpaying the possibly illegal drainage fee, according to the HoustonChronicle. Those fees have been reported to have totaled anestimated $500 million since the inception of the ReBuild Houstonprogram.

Houston CPA Elizabeth Perez is the named plaintiff in the newlawsuit. Ms. Perez was also the named plaintiff in the originallawsuit against the City. Houston Mayor Anise Parker and PublicWorks and Engineering Director Dale Rudick are listed alongsidethe City as co-defendants.

Current Houston Mayoral candidate, Council Member StephenCostello, a civil engineer by profession, was one of the primaryproponents of the Prop 1 charter amendment in 2010.

"With a mayor's race underway," Texas State Senator PaulBettencourt (R-Houston) said in a prior interview with BreitbartTexas, "it will now fall onto Council Member Stephen Costello andothers that supported this tax how they would implement theCourt's ruling or follow the Parker Administration in trying tokick the can down the road. I don't see how that can possiblyserve the public at all with such a strong ruling from the TexasSupreme Court." Senator Bettencourt was one of the primaryopponents of the Prop 1 "Rain Tax" issue.

"Under the arrogant leadership of Mayor Parker, City Hall hascollected over $500 million in tax dollars illegally from innocentHouston taxpayers," Mr. Taylor said in the Chronicle. "Thelawsuit not only seeks to halt the continuation of this illegalrain tax but it also requests reimbursement of every single pennyof tax illegally assessed."

The original lawsuit was sent back to the trial court after anextremely rare rebuke of the City by the Supreme Court of Texas.In the unanimous 8-0 opinion, the Court said, "The City did notadequately describe the chief features -- the character andpurpose -- of the charter amendment on the ballot. By omittingthe drainage charges, it failed to substantially submit themeasure with such definiteness and certainty that voters would notbe misled. Accordingly, summary judgment should not have beengranted in the City's favor. We reverse the judgment of the courtof appeals, and, because only the City moved for summary judgment,remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent withthis opinion."

Mr. Taylor said he expects a quick victory in the district courton the original lawsuit and the Chronicle reports that legalexperts agree the lower court will likely honor the SupremeCourt's ruling.

In a decision published June 24, the Louisiana Third Circuit Courtof Appeal agreed that the 16th Judicial District Court was correctin certifying a class action lawsuit against Iberia Parish SheriffSid Hebert and five deputies.

But the appeals court sent the case back to the 16th JudicialDistrict Court with instructions to redefine the "class" toinclude only those meeting certain requirements.

On Sept. 24, 2006, deputies with the Iberia Parish Sheriff'sOffice used tear gas three times to disperse a crowd gathered fora block party in the vicinity of Hopkins and Robertson streetsduring the Sugar Cane Festival.

The incident allegedly began with complaints that the crowd wasblocking traffic along Hopkins Street, which is in New Iberia'spredominantly black West End area.

Sheriff's Office representatives at the time said deputies triedto disperse the group peacefully with announcements over a publicaddress system but used tear gas when some in the crowd refused toleave and began to throw bottles at police cars.

According to the appeals court, plaintiffs fall into differentcategories: Those who claimed not to have heard the policewarnings but left after the first tear gas was disbursed, thosewho heard the warnings but refused to leave, and those who may ormay not have heard the warnings but reacted with criminal behaviortowards the police.

Because the plaintiffs were in various locations and claim injurydue to any of three tear gas disbursements, there is no commonevidence, the appeals court decision states.

The Daily Advertiser reported in September 2007 that a Lafayetteattorney filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of at least160 people who claim the Iberia Parish Sheriff's Office usedunnecessary and illegal force in dispersing a crowd of about 500people during a block party at the close of the 2006 Sugar CaneFestival.

The plaintiffs include parents and their children, some claimingto have suffered injuries from being struck by tear gas cylindersand the stampede that followed. Their attorney, James MacManus,said in 2007 that he found no one among his 160 plaintiffs whorecalls hearing either a warning or seeing someone throw a bottlebefore the tear gas was used.

The lawsuit names more than 30 officials, including Sheriff SidHebert, several of his deputies, Mayor Hilda Curry and everymember of both the city and parish councils.

The Sheriff's Office conducted its own investigation into theincident but found that deputies acted within their boundarieswhen dealing with the crowd.

ICONIX BRAND: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action----------------------------------------------------------Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, representing investors of IconixBrand Group, Inc., disclosed that it has filed a class actionlawsuit in the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York on behalf of a class (the "Class") comprisingpurchasers of Iconix securities between February 20, 2013 andApril 17, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Please contact Casey Sadler, Esquire or Lesley Portnoy, Esquire at(310) 201-9150, or at shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss thismatter. If you inquire by email, please include your mailingaddress, telephone number and number of shares purchased.

Iconix is a brand management company and owner of a diversifiedportfolio of global consumer brands across women's, men's,entertainment and home. The Complaint alleges that defendantsmade false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to discloseto investors that: (1) that the Company had underreported the costbasis of its brands; (2) that the Company engaged in irregularaccounting practices related to the booking of its joint venturerevenues and profits, free-cash flow, and organic growth; (3)that, as a result, the Company's earnings and revenues wereoverstated; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,Defendants' statements about Iconix's business, operations, andprospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonablebasis.

On March 30, 2015 after the market closed, the Company announcedthat its Chief Financial Officer Jeff Lupinacci had resignedeffective March 30, 2015. Following this news, shares of Iconixfell $2.72 per share, or 7%, to close on March 31, 2015, at $33.67per share on unusually high volume.

On Friday, April 17, 2015, after the market closed, Iconixannounced that the Company's Chief Operating Officer ("COO")Seth Horowitz had resigned after serving for approximately oneyear. The Company stated that it did not intend to name a new COO.Then, on Monday, April 20, 2015, Roth Capital Partners, publishedan Equity Research Note, criticizing the Company's allegedaccounting irregularities concerning free-cash flow accounting,organic growth, and gains on licensing fees. Following this news,shares of Iconix declined $6.62 per share, over 20%, to close onApril 20, 2015, at $25.41 per share, on unusually heavy volume.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move theCourt, no later than 60 days from the date of this Notice, toserve as lead plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements.To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at thistime; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action andremain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn moreabout this action, or if you have any questions concerning thisannouncement or your rights or interests with respect to thesematters, please contact Casey Sadler, Esquire, or Lesley Portnoy,Esquire, of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, 1925 Century Park East,Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at (310) 201-9150, bye-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website athttp://www.glancylaw.com

If you inquire via email, please include your mailing address,telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

This Notice may be considered Attorney Advertising in somejurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

IOOF: Head of Advice Research on Leave Amid Class Action--------------------------------------------------------Adele Ferguson and Sarah Danckert, writing for The Sydney MorningHerald, report that IOOF head of advice research Peter Hilton is"on leave until further notice" after the company was rocked byexplosive allegations of serious misconduct by a number of seniorstaff, sparking the prospect of a class action.

As IOOF's top brass spent its fourth day locked in meetings aboutthe scandal shrouding the company, sources said a class actioncould also be on the cards.

Sources said the Australian Securities and Investments Commissionhad already met with IOOF executives to discuss the allegationsraised by Fairfax Media. ASIC confirmed it was investigatingIOOF. It came as a Greens push for a royal commission intomisconduct in the finance sector looks set to fail after Labor andthe Abbott government refused to back the motion.

The industry has been rocked in the past couple of years byscandals inside CBA's financial planning division, NAB, MacquariePrivate Wealth and now IOOF, the former friendly that manages morethan $150 billion of customer money and has 650,000 clients.

With the company is in crisis mode, IOOF chief executiveChris Kelaher told staff and financial planners in the company'snetwork in an email sent on June 22 that Mr. Hilton was "on leaveuntil further notice".

Mr. Kelaher's note came in the wake of revelations by FairfaxMedia that IOOF senior staff had engaged in a range ofwrongdoings, including insider trading, front running,misrepresentation of performance figures and cheating on exams.

Mr. Hilton was at the centre of allegations about getting staff tocheat on compliance and training modules on his behalf and aninternal investigation into possible front-running on behalf of arelative.

Internal documents seen by Fairfax Media show Mr. Hilton receiveda final warning in 2009 and another final warning in 2014 for apassword breach. His responsible manager status was revoked afteran internal investigation found he had instructed direct reportsto complete his Kaplan and compulsory e-training modules.

The minor recovery followed the release of broker notes from CLSA,Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs and Macquarie Bank.

Macquarie Bank issued a note on June 22 saying it expected IOOF'searnings to be affected by the fallout of the allegations,according to media reports. It predicted some advisers couldleave the group to avoid being stained by the scandal surroundingIOOF.

Goldman Sachs issued a note saying it believed the market over-reacted and maintained its "buy'' recommendation.

But it said it was concerned about "indirect" implications."These include: the brand/reputational damage from such high-profile press coverage of the allegations; possible pressure onIOOF to increase its expenditure on systems/processes; and/or theheightened possibility of an investigation into "verticallyintegrated" financial institutions."

The email from Mr. Kelaher described the incidents as isolated andsaid they were not systemic.

"The incidents were isolated and are not reflective of thebehavior of our employees or advisers. Irrespective of this, PeterHilton is on leave until further notice," Mr. Kelaher said.

IOOF made no mention of Mr. Hilton being on leave in itsannouncement to the Australian Securities Exchange on June 22.

"The issues raised in these articles are largely historic innature [2008 and 2009] and, as expressed in the company statement,were dealt with as considered appropriate at the time,"Mr. Kelaher said.

Several internal whistleblowers have come forward to Fairfax Mediato shine a light on IOOF's culture. One whistleblower who spokeout had gone to the company's human resources department with aseries of allegations. He went on stress leave and lodged acomplaint with Fair Work over bullying and harassment. In May thecompany fired him. He then came to the press.

Mr. Kelaher said the suggestion that a whistleblower had beenpoorly or inappropriately treated was "incorrect and misleading".

"The individual concerned at no time initiated the IOOFwhistleblower policy.

"Finally, we should all understand these are not adviser norfinancial advice related issues and to link them to financialadvice is mischievous."

Fairfax Media also revealed that IOOF financial planningsubsidiaries have had a number of run-ins with ASIC over theyears, with a number of planners banned and at least one sentencedto prison.

IOOF refused to detail how many clients had been affected and howmuch compensation had been paid to victims of poor financialadvice.

IOOF has also been rocked by allegations its IT systems areriddled with issues, an allegation the company strongly denies.

One former IOOF employee told Fairfax Media on June 23 that thecompany's digital process were "sloppy and under resourced". Theformer staffer described the culture as "old school and way behindthe times" and that the company needed to "progress with digitaland there is a lot of manual work for the unit prices which leavesroom for error".

On June 23, it was revealed IOOF's cash management unit hadexperienced at least 16 breaches between 2012 and late 2013. TheAustralian Securities and Investments Commission has alsoconfirmed it is investigating the allegations raised by FairfaxMedia.

On certain travel trailers, windows which are identified asemergency exits may not be designed for this purpose, or may beblocked by rear roof access ladders. This could prevent egressfrom the vehicle in an emergency situation, increasing the risk ofinjury. Correction: On Mountaineer models, a different stylewindow will be installed if the existing window is blocked by theladder. On the Montana models, owners will be given instructionson how to inspect windows. Depending on the availability ofalternate exits, labels may be removed, or exit windows replaced.

This recall involves the Roman blinds sold by Kingswood DraperyService Ltd. The products are custom made and are available invarious colours/models/sizes. The products were ordered fromKingswood Drapery Service Ltd by interior designers and installedin consumer's homes.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determinedthat the recalled blinds pose a strangulation hazard by having ahazardous loop on the back of the Roman shades. Strangulation canoccur when a child places his/her neck between the exposed innercord and the fabric on the backside of the shade, or when a childpulls the cord out and wraps it around his/her neck.

The Roman shades also do not have the required hang tag warnings,bottom rail labelling, company information or year of manufacturelisted on the product.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled blinds andcontact Kingswood Drapery Service Ltd at (416) 633-1103.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibitsrecalled products from being redistributed, sold or even givenaway in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any healthor safety incidents related to the use of this product or anyother consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the ConsumerProduct Incident Report Form.

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Faces Suit Over Ex-Con Hiring Discrimination-----------------------------------------------------------------Daniel Wiessner, writing for Reuters, reports that dozens ofcompanies that use popular recruiting websites violated a New YorkCity law by refusing to hire anyone with a felony record,impacting mostly black people, according to a new lawsuit.

In a state court in Manhattan, the National Association for theAdvancement of Colored People (NAACP) on June 25 sued a class ofcompanies it said were breaking city and state laws that barbusinesses from refusing to consider former convicts for jobs.

Since New York's prison population was more than half black, thesuit said, such policies had served to keep many black people outof the workforce.

Only four companies are named in the June 25 lawsuit: electronicsmaker Koninklijke Philips NV, pest control company Advance Tech,data management firm Recall Holdings Ltd, and IT consulting firmNTT Data.

But the NAACP said in the complaint it intended to add more than100 defendants. Philips, the lawsuit said, recently posted alisting on the website tweetmyjobs.com seeking a network engineerwith "zero felony convictions."

The suit also names job-posting sites Monster, ZipRecruiter andIndeed as defendants because they would be required to remove suchposts if the NAACP wins the case.

Laws prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis ofcriminal histories vary by city and state, with New York City'slaw providing particularly strong protections to job applicants.

The number of lawsuits claiming employers have violated those lawshas risen dramatically in recent years, according to the U.S.Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Other cases, including a proposed class action filed againstAmazon in Washington State in April, claim companies broke the lawby failing to provide job applicants with copies of backgroundchecks before making hiring decisions.

The companies and job-posting sites named in the lawsuit did notimmediately respond to requests for comment.

The case is NAACP New York State Conference Metropolitan Councilof Branches v. Philips Electronics North America Corp, New YorkState Supreme Court, New York County, case number not immediatelyavailable.

Loblaw Companies Limited is recalling Loblaws (store-made) brandSpaghetti Sauce from the marketplace due to possible glasscontamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled productsdescribed below.

The following products were made and sold at Loblaws Longueuil,1150 rue King-George, Longueuil, Quebec.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalledproducts should be thrown out or returned to the store where theywere purchased.

There have been no reported injuries associated with theconsumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by the company. The Canadian FoodInspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safetyinvestigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. Ifother high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify thepublic through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled productfrom the marketplace.

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST.772" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The products were shippedfor hotel, restaurant and institutional use in Colorado, NewMexico, Utah and Wyoming.

The problem was discovered June 30 when the firm received apositive result for E. coli as part of its in-house samplingprogram. Some products made from the same source material as thepositive sample were shipped into commerce.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of illnessesassociated with consumption of these products. Anyone concernedabout an illness should contact a healthcare provider.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can causedehydration, bloody diarrhea and abdominal cramps 2-8 days (3-4days, on average) after exposure to the organism. While mostpeople recover within a week, some develop a type of kidneyfailure called hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). This condition canoccur among persons of any age but is most common in childrenunder 5-years old and older adults. It is marked by easy bruising,pallor and decreased urine output. Persons who experience thesesymptoms should seek emergency medical care immediately.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verifyrecalling firms notify their customers of the recall and thatsteps are taken to make certain that the product is no longeravailable to consumers.

FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meatproducts, including fresh and frozen, and only consume beefproducts that have been cooked to a temperature of 145ø F forsteaks and roasts and 160ø F for ground product. The only way toconfirm that beef is cooked to a temperature high enough to killharmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer that measuresinternal temperature, http://1.usa.gov/1cDxcDQ.

Consumers with questions regarding the recall can contact JeffHarvey, company general manager, at (303) 458-7441, ext. 231.Media with questions regarding the recall can contact RobertGlass, company sales manager, at (303) 458-7441, ext. 231.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSISvirtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov orvia smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat andPoultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available inEnglish and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safetymessages are available 24 hours a day. The online ElectronicConsumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours aday at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem

LONGUEUIL, CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Diesel Spill-------------------------------------------------------Damon Van Der Linde, writing for Financial Post, reports that forthe first time in Quebec's history, members of a class action aretrying to directly intervene against the lawsuit representingthem.

Yves Theriault is one of almost 300,000 residents in Longueuil onMontreal's South Shore who weren't able to consume their tap waterfor about 36 hours on January 15, after 28,000 litres of dieselfuel leaked into a municipal pumping station.

On January 19, a motion to authorize a class action was filed onbehalf of a resident, Robert Ouimet, for damages of $100 perresident, totalling about $29 million. Though no one got sick asa result of drinking the contaminated water, Ouimet argues thecity waited too long before issuing the ban, which exposed thepopulation to health risks and stress among citizens. And Mr.Theriault sees the lawsuit as local ratepayers essentially suingthemselves.

When Mr. Theriault heard about the case being discussed on theradio, he and his partner decided it wasn't in their interest ascitizens, since it would cost the city a lot of money to hirelawyers and pay for other expenses during the legal process.

"Our reaction was that it's really stupid," said Mr. Theriault."If the city is ordered to pay the damages, it's sure that theCity of Longueuil will pass on the bill to taxpayers."

Mr. Theriault says he is also concerned that the city iswithholding information gathered in the investigation followingthe spill, because it could potentially be used against themunicipality in the lawsuit.

"The public has the right to know what happened and what measurescan be taken to stop it from happening again," he said.

Mr. Theriault sent an email to the lawyer in the case, Jacky-EricSalvant, asking that the class action be dropped.

"People drank the water and people bathed in the water, which wascontaminated," Mr. Salvant said in January after filing papers atthe Longueuil courthouse. "It was badly managed."

When Mr. Theriault didn't receive a reply from Mr. Salvant, he setup a Facebook page titled "Recours imbuvable" (Undrinkable Action)that gathered 2,500 "likes" in the space of a few days.

"It snowballed from there and we saw that there were lots ofpeople in Longueuil who felt like us," said Mr. Theriault.

Mr. Salvant told the Financial Post that the lawsuit targets notonly the City of Longueuil, but also the private company thatmanages the pumping station, and in future, perhaps even theCanadian government. He also says the provincially funded "Fondsd'aide aux recours collectifs" program helps to pay for lawyerfees in class action lawsuits such as this one.

"The people of Longueuil were wronged and they have a right tomake their claim in court," Mr. Salvant said.

Mr. Theriault's lawyer Marie-Helene Beaudoin says its the firsttime a member of the class action lawsuit has directly intervenedagainst the case in the province.

"It's a really important case in class action matters becauseoften people who are the members of the group are voiceless exceptfor the representatives," said Ms. Beaudoin. "I think it'simportant to recognize that they have a voice and they should beheard."

Though Ms. Beaudoin has taken on the case pro bono, Mr. Theriaultset up a fundraising website and has collected $600 to coveradministrative costs.

So far, Ms. Beaudoin has filed a motion to the courts to obtainpermission to intervene in the case, though it has not yet beenheard.

If it is rejected, she says the next step will be to challenge theconstitutionality of the article in the Code of Civil Procedure,which allows member to intervene only to support an action.

LOS ANGELES, CA: Hobart Veteran Teacher Files Class Action----------------------------------------------------------Zahira Torres, writing for The Los Angeles Times, reports thatAttorney Mark Geragos, who is representing Rafe Esquith, launchedthe first salvo on June 22 in the dispute over the allegations ofmisconduct against the veteran teacher, filing a formal claimagainst Los Angeles Unified School District, a precursor to alawsuit. The claim gives notice of a class-action suit thatMr. Esquith's attorney plans to file against the district arguingthat hundreds of teachers in similar situations have been denieddue process rights.

From his modest classroom at Hobart Boulevard Elementary School inKoreatown, Mr. Esquith became an education superstar. Histeaching techniques brought him world-wide recognition, and hisbooks became models for how to engage young students. But forabout the last two months, Mr. Esquith has been sidelined as theLA Unified investigates allegations of misconduct against thepopular teacher. Mr. Esquith and his attorneys said theinvestigation is related to comments about nudity that he made tostudents. They also said that L.A. Unified is looking into Mr.Esquith's nonprofit, the Hobart Shakespeareans.

The decision to put him on leave -- and keep him there for so long-- has outraged his supporters. But the district has not backeddown, saying that regardless of his celebrity, they won't send himback to school until their investigation is over.

The debate comes as the school district struggles to recover froma series of scandals involving teachers and administrators accusedof sexual misconduct with students. L.A. Unified last year paid arecord $139 million to the victims of a Miramonte ElementarySchool teacher who was allowed to stay in the classroom even aftercomplaints about his behavior with students.

Some see the Esquith case as part of the district's effort tostrengthen its response to allegations of misconduct, but whetherit is an over-correction remains a matter of debate.

In his first interview since he was pulled from his fifth-gradeclass, Mr. Esquith acknowledged on June 22 that he quipped withstudents that if he could not raise enough money for the annualShakespearean play they would all have to perform their partsnaked like the king in "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn."

After another teacher complained, he said he explained the contextof the joke to his principal at Hobart Boulevard Elementary. Theprincipal, he said, told him he had nothing to worry about. ButMr. Esquith was removed from the classroom in April.

"We overreact to everything. That's the American way and I'm avictim of that overreaction," Mr. Esquith said. "I want to fixthis system. I want to make sure that teachers do not have to gothrough the same thing that I went through."

Leaders of the teachers union, who have roundly criticized the useof so-called teacher jails, said the number of instructors pulledfrom classrooms after allegations of misconduct exploded after theabuse scandal at Miramonte.

Since last June, 89 teachers and others have been taken out of theclassroom pending an investigation. District officials declinedto provide details of the investigation. But L.A. Unified GeneralCounsel David Holmquist said the school system will not sacrificestudent safety or a thorough investigation because the public andemployees want a quick resolution.

This recall involves crossbar clamping wedges on Yakima Q Towerroof racks. The affected crossbar clamping wedges are identifiedby model numbers 8000124 and 8000135 with a date code range of5026 to 5146. In addition, the affected units do not have dimpleson the top or identification ribs on the side. This is noted bythe red thumbs down symbol in the second image.

The recalled crossbar clamping wedges could slide on the crossbarsduring installation causing a loose fit on the vehicle. Q Towerssliding on crossbars can cause difficulties installing and/orcompromise installed rack integrity. A compromised fit couldresult in a rack ejection, causing a crash or personal injury topersons outside the vehicle.

Neither Health Canada nor Yakima Products has received anyconsumer reports of incidents or injuries related to the use ofthese products.

Approximately 25 units of the recalled product were sold inCanada.

The recall products were sold from January 2015 to May 2015 atvarious independent specialty bicycle dealers.

Product that is affected by this recall has no identification ribson the side of the product. Product that is not affected hasdimples on the top of the product or identification ribs on theside of the product.

Consumers should immediately remove the product from their vehicleand contact Yakima customer service where they will be providedwith a repair kit at no charge.

For more information, consumers can contact Yakima customerservice by telephone at 1-888-266-3085, email or visit thecompany's recall website.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibitsrecalled products from being redistributed, sold or even givenaway in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any healthor safety incidents related to the use of this product or anyother consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the ConsumerProduct Incident Report Form.

When the elastic draw cord with hard plastic or metal tips in theneck area of certain lululemon athletica tops is accidentallypulled or caught on something and released, it can snap back andmake contact with the face area and result in injury.

Health Canada has received 5 reports of consumer incidents andinjuries related to the use of these tops.

lululemon athletica has received 5 reports in Canada and 1 reportsin the United States of consumer incidents and injuries related tothe use of these tops.

About 133,288 in the United States and 185,191 in Canada atlululemon athletica stores, online at www.lululemon.com andthrough select sales partners prior to 2014.

Primarily sold prior to 2014.

Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Peru

Manufacturer: lululemon athletica Vancouver British Columbia CANADA

Consumers should stop wearing the tops with the elastic draw cordand either remove the draw cord or contact lululemon athletica torequest a new, non-elastic draw cord with written instructions onhow to replace the draw cord.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission'swebsite.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibitsrecalled products from being redistributed, sold or even givenaway in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any healthor safety incidents related to the use of this product or anyother consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the ConsumerProduct Incident Report Form.

MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Sued Over Minimum Interest Rate Annuities---------------------------------------------------------------Jesse Aronstein, individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. andC.M. Life Insurance Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-12864-MGM (D. Mass.,June 30, 2015), is an action for damages as a proximate result ofthe Defendant's bait and switch scheme, specifically byadvertising, marketing, and selling fixed annuities and receivingand retaining funds, on the basis that they had a MinimumGuaranteed Interest Rate, but then unilaterally reducing that ratebelow the guaranteed rate.

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. operates a mutual lifeinsurance corporation with its principal office located at 1295State Street, Springfield, Massachusetts.

C.M. Life Insurance Company operates a stock life insurancecompany with its principal place of business in 100 Bright MeadowBoulevard, Enfield, Connecticut.

MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces Wage Class Action in Ohio-------------------------------------------------Ann Marie Miani, writing for The West Virginia Record, reportsthat a woman alleges that her employer failed to pay her and otheremployees through regular channels or during regular time periods.

Melissa Sheridan has filed an action against her employer, MaximHealthcare Services Inc., on June 5 in Ohio Circuit Court onbehalf of all employees who were discharged in the last five yearsand not paid their wages "within the period of time required bylaw and . . . through their regular pay channels."

Ms. Sheridan was terminated from her job on Dec. 12, 2014, and didnot receive all her wages until on or after Dec. 19, 2014. Shesays that although she usually received her wages via directdeposit, her last check was issued as a paper check that she hadto pick up from her employer.

Ms. Sheridan is asking that each member of the class action beawarded the damages of no more than $75,000. As well as pre- andpost judgment interest as provided by law, attorneys' fees andcosts, injunctive relief and any relief that the court may deemjust.

On certain vehicles, fuses in the passenger side interior fuse boxmight have been installed incorrectly during assembly. This couldresult in one or more fuses losing electrical contact, which couldaffect different system functions, such as front passenger seatoccupancy recognition, passenger side airbag indicator lamp, theinstrument cluster and the windshield wipers. Should the frontpassenger seat occupancy recognition system be disabled, and thepassenger side airbag indicator lamp be affected, there would beno visual warning that the passenger frontal airbag is notoperating correctly. Failure of the passenger frontal airbag todeploy during a crash (where deployment is warranted) couldincrease the risk of injury to the seat occupant. Also, instrumentcluster and windshield wiper malfunction could increase the riskof a crash. Correction: Dealers will inspect the installationposition and orientation of the fuses in the passenger sideinterior fuse box, and replace the fuse box if necessary.

But U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler of the District of NewJersey denied Merck's bid for summary judgment against seveninstitutional investors, rejecting the defendant's argument thatthey lacked standing to sue.

The ruling involves institutional investors who opted out of along-running shareholder class action against Merck over itsstatements to shareholders about Vioxx, a painkiller that wastaken off the market in 2004 over concerns that it caused heartproblems in users. The latest ruling follows another in May inwhich Judge Chesler denied Merck's motion to dismiss the entiremultidistrict securities litigation, which also includes classactions on behalf of shareholders.

Merck's motion to dismiss the 157 funds cited the findings of aplaintiff's damages expert who said those funds suffered noeconomic damage from the conduct at issue. The 157 funds aregroups of stocks, some focusing on specific categories such as thedrug industry or on North American companies, which are managed bythe institutional investors. Whether other funds besides the 157remain in the suit is unclear because many of the court documentsin the case are filed under seal.

The institutional investors include government and privateentities in Germany, Sweden, Austria, Luxembourg, the Netherlandsand other nations.

The institutional investors conceded that their expert calculatedno losses for those funds but argued that summary judgment wasimproper because all but one of them had sustained damages forother funds they owned. They cited case law to support anargument that summary judgment cannot be granted where it woulddispose of only a portion of a claim.

But Merck noted that the case law cited by the plaintiffs predateda 2010 revision to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of CivilProcedure, which authorizes summary judgment as to part of a claimor defense, and Judge Chesler agreed.

Merck also argued that the seven institutional investors lackedstanding because they suffered no injuries related to Merck'sconduct. The company cited a 2008 Supreme Court ruling, SprintCommunications Co. v. APCC Services Inc., in which the court heldthat the assignee of a legal claim had standing to bring the claimwhere it agreed to remit the proceeds of the claim to theassignor. Merck also cited a 2008 decision from the U.S. CircuitCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit, W.R. Huff AssetManagement Co., v. Deloitte & Touche, which held that Sprint madeclear that the minimum requirement for an injury-in-fact insecurities litigation is that the plaintiff have legal title to,or a proprietary interest in, the claim.

Merck argued that the seven institutional investors presented thesame situation identified in Sprint and Huff as insufficient todemonstrate injury in fact for standing. Merck also maintainedthat the plaintiffs did not have assignments at the time the suitswere filed in 2007, which was before the Sprint or Huff rulings,and that the plaintiffs' post-filing assignments fail to conferstanding.

Judge Chesler said courts in the Third Circuit have routinelyrecognized standing of investment advisors without assignment fromshareholders. Merck's position that the court should reject post-filing assignments "appears to elevate technicalities oversubstance," Judge Chesler said.

Merck's argument "misses the reality of the situation: as to eachchallenged plaintiff, an allegedly harmed shareholder exists, butthe lawsuit was not filed in its name. In other words, there isno absence of a case or controversy; rather the pursuit ofsecurities fraud claims against Merck has been undertaken in thewrong name," Judge Chesler said.

Judge Chesler said he would adopt the solution used by the SecondCircuit in a similar case in 2009, In re Vivendi Universal S.A.Sec. Litigation. In that case, where a group of foreigninvestment entities brought individual actions related to asecurities class action, the Second Circuit issued the Huffdecision while a summary judgment motion was pending. The Vivendicourt opted to allow the real parties in interest to join the caseor substitute for the current plaintiffs. Chesler said allowingcomplaints to be amended would not prejudice Merck but terminatingthe claims would cause "severe" harm to shareholders.

The lead counsel for the direct action plaintiffs, SalvatoreGraziano -- sgraziano@blbglaw.com -- of Bernstein, Litowitz,Berger & Grossman in New York, did not return a call about theruling. Evan Chesler -- echesler@cravath.com -- of Cravath,Swaine & Moore, and James Fitzpatrick of Hughes, Hubbard & Reed,both in New York, representing Merck, also did not return calls.A Merck spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

MILIEU DESIGN: Faces "Cansino" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime----------------------------------------------------------------Federico Cansino, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffssimilarly situated, known and unknown v. Milieu Design, LLC andMilieu Group, Inc., and Peter Wodarz and Brian Frank, Case No.1:15-cv-05793 (N.D. Ill., June 30, 2015), is brought against theDefendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of theFair Labor Standard Act.The Defendants are in the business of providing landscapingdesign, construction, maintenance, and lighting and snowplowingservices.

A recall has been initiated for one (1) lot (lot 7103985) ofPiperacillin-Tazobactam for Injection, 3 g/0.375 g and one (1) lot(lot 7103921) of Piperacillin-Tazobactam for Injection, 4 g/0.5 gby Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC, due to the potential presence ofparticulate matter.

If infused, particulate matter could potentially lead to patientharm including phlebitis and thrombo-embolism, which could resultin death.

Vials of the affected lot should not be used and should bereturned as outlined in the Recall Notice issued by Mylan on June23, 2015. Health care professionals are advised to remain vigilantin their follow up with patients who have been administered theimpacted lots.

Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC has initiated a recall due to thepotential presence of particulate matter in vials from affectedlots of Piperacillin-Tazobactam for Injection (see table below).

The presence of particulate matter could pose the following risks,if injected: local inflammation, phlebitis, allergic responseand/or embolization in the body and infection.

The recent inspection of retention samples of two lots (lots7103985 and 7103921) of Piperacillin-Tazobactam (3 g/ 0.375 g, and4 g/ 0.5 g, respectively) revealed the presence of particulatematter in some of the vials inspected. These are the only lotswithin expiry distributed by Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC to theCanadian market to date.

The two (2) affected lots of Piperacillin-Tazobactam (3 g/ 0.375 gand 4 g/ 0.5 g) for injection are being recalled.

The root cause of this issue is currently under investigation byMylan Pharmaceuticals. No complaints or adverse event reports havebeen received in relation to this product from these lots.

Consumers should contact their health care professional for moreinformation.

Vials of the affected lots of Piperacillin-Tazobactam should notbe used and should be returned as outlined in the Recall Noticeissued by Mylan on June 23, 2015.

If your institution or pharmacy has distributed the affectedproduct lots further, notify recipients that they may havereceived the product lots identified above and ask them to returnthe affected product as indicated in the Recall Notice.

Health Canada is communicating this important safety informationto health care professionals and to the public through itsMedEffect Canada website. Health Canada is also monitoring therecalls and the implementation of necessary corrective andpreventive actions.

A recall has been initiated for one (1) lot (lot 7103985) ofPiperacillin-Tazobactam for Injection, 3 g/0.375 g and one (1) lot(lot 7103921) of Piperacillin-Tazobactam for Injection, 4 g/0.5 gby Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC, due to the potential presence ofparticulate matter.

If infused, particulate matter could potentially lead to patientharm including phlebitis and thrombo-embolism, which could resultin death.

Vials of the affected lot should not be used and should bereturned as outlined in the Recall Notice issued by Mylan on June23, 2015. Health care professionals are advised to remain vigilantin their follow up with patients who have been administered theimpacted lots.

Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC has initiated a recall due to thepotential presence of particulate matter in vials from affectedlots of Piperacillin-Tazobactam for Injection (see table below).

The presence of particulate matter could pose the following risks,if injected: local inflammation, phlebitis, allergic responseand/or embolization in the body and infection.

The recent inspection of retention samples of two lots (lots7103985 and 7103921) of Piperacillin-Tazobactam (3 g/ 0.375 g, and4 g/ 0.5 g, respectively) revealed the presence of particulatematter in some of the vials inspected. These are the only lotswithin expiry distributed by Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC to theCanadian market to date.

The two (2) affected lots of Piperacillin-Tazobactam (3 g/ 0.375 gand 4 g/ 0.5 g) for injection are being recalled.

The root cause of this issue is currently under investigation byMylan Pharmaceuticals. No complaints or adverse event reports havebeen received in relation to this product from these lots.

Consumers should contact their health care professional for moreinformation.

Vials of the affected lots of Piperacillin-Tazobactam should notbe used and should be returned as outlined in the Recall Noticeissued by Mylan on June 23, 2015.

If your institution or pharmacy has distributed the affectedproduct lots further, notify recipients that they may havereceived the product lots identified above and ask them to returnthe affected product as indicated in the Recall Notice.

Health Canada is communicating this important safety informationto health care professionals and to the public through itsMedEffect Canada website. Health Canada is also monitoring therecalls and the implementation of necessary corrective andpreventive actions.

NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Defense Department Funds Concussion Study-----------------------------------------------------------The Associated Press reports that more than 35,000 collegeathletes and cadets at U.S. service academies are helpingresearchers write a new, extensive and groundbreaking chapter inthe study and tracking of concussions.

With about $22 million in funding from the NCAA and Department ofDefense, the college students have agreed to be monitored over aperiod of years, even decades, to determine the frequency,severity and cumulative effects of head injuries in theirrespective activities. Though the project, run by a group ofinvestigators who make up the Concussion Assessment, Research andEducation (CARE) Consortium, is less than a year old, theinformation that scientists have already collected shows thepotential. Baseline data has already been gathered on 6,500students, about 225 of whom have suffered concussions and beenevaluated.

"A year ago, if someone had said, 'I've got a data set with 20 to25 concussions,' you'd say that's pretty good," saidSteve Broglio, associate professor at Michigan's School ofKinesiology and director of the NeuroSport Research Laboratory."To now say, 'I've got tenfold of that in Year 1,' you're lookingat the possibility of having so many numbers by the end that we'llbe able to answer any question."

Mr. Broglio is overseeing a branch of the study that looks atclinical effects of concussions -- headaches, balance and memory.

Michael McCrea, the director of brain injury research at theMedical College of Wisconsin, is taking a subset of the athletes-- about 270 -- and doing more extensive testing. Testing in the"Advanced Research Core" will include bloodwork, MRIs and otherscanning techniques, and athletes will also be equipped with head-impact sensors to give the scientists a better gauge of themagnitude and location of the hits.

Though the researchers will begin drafting papers in the next sixmonths, the real-world effects of such a large study could takeyears to tease out. For instance, a key point in the recentlysettled class-action lawsuit against the NFL is that there is noway to diagnose the concussion-related disease Chronic TraumaticEncephalopathy (CTE) until a patient is dead.

If a way to definitively diagnose CTE in living patients werefound, it could dramatically change the landscape of that lawsuit.

"We might tap into that," Mr. Broglio said. "I think we'll getthere."

Part of getting there, though, will be keeping the funding alivepast three years. The researchers are hardly complaining about a$22 million grant, but they know the work could take decades.

"I think five years down the road, we'd immediately have a muchclearer understanding of what the natural time course of recoveryis after this injury, both clinically and physiologically,"Mr. McCrea said. "More importantly, we'll know what the factorsare that predict prognosis and outcome."

That would lead to improved injury management techniques, whichcould conceivably improve recoveries.

Athletes and military personnel are subject to similar headinjuries, which is why both the NCAA and Department of Defense arechipping in on the project.

Among the 21 schools signed up are Michigan, Wisconsin, Delaware,UCLA, Azuza Pacific and the service academies. Mr. Broglio ishoping to bring the total to 30 colleges.

Mr. McCrea said "it takes a small army" of athletic trainers andothers at each university to keep track of the testing.Thomas McAllister, chair of the Indiana School of MedicineDepartment of Psychiatry, is overseeing the administrative part ofthe consortium, managing the paperwork and results.

The end result for all the data these scientists collect may notbe known for decades.

"It's a daunting number," Mr. McCrea said of the thousandsenrolled in the program. "But it will give us a never-beforelevel of understanding" of the effects of concussions.

NEW YORK, NY: Rikers Class Suit Wins Historic Package of Reforms----------------------------------------------------------------Rosa Goldensohn, writing for DNAinfo, reports that lawyers for agroup of former Rikers inmates won a package of "historic" reformsfor the city's jails in a settlement, the city said on June 22.

The package of reforms includes federal oversight of violence atRikers Island, a new use-of-force policy that limits when officerscan use physical violence to subdue jail inmates, and expandedvideo surveillance to monitor corrections officers' behavior.

"This agreement is historic in scope, putting in place landmarkreforms that the parties all believe will make the city jailsdramatically safer," Mary Lynne Werlwas, a Legal Aid lawyer whohelped spearhead the 2012 case, said in a statement.

The class-action case that brought the now widely acknowledged"culture of violence" at Rikers to light involves Mark Nunez, oneof a group of inmates who was assaulted by jail staff withoutprovocation.

Mr. Nunez was brutally attacked -- maced, beaten by officers inriot gear, stripped naked and taunted -- all because a correctionofficer was upset that other workers had left food in a pantryfridge overnight, according to court documents.

New York's federal prosecutor Preet Bharara joined the classaction in 2014.

Mayor Bill de Blasio said the changes are a major shift for Rikersafter years of "abuse and neglect."

"The agreement represents another strong step toward our goal ofreversing the decades of abuse on Rikers and building a culture ofsafety for officers and inmates alike," Mr. de Blasio said in astatement.

The reform package also includes new anonymous reporting protocolsfor use of force incidents and experimental measures like bodycameras for officers, according to a letter from Mr. Bharara.

* * *

According to The New York Times Editorial Board, brutality is adecades-old problem in Rikers Island jail complex in New YorkCity. Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan, wason the mark last year when he said that ending it would requirenew policies that would be monitored and enforced by a federalcourt instead of being allowed to fade when public attentioninevitably waned after the latest lawsuit or headline.

Mr. Bharara delivered on that promise on June 22, when the cityagreed to sweeping policy changes to settle a long-running legalbattle over abuses at the jail. Mr. Bharara documented some ofthe mistreatment of adolescents at Rikers in a report last summerthat depicted a deep-seated culture of violence in which inmateswere battered for minor infractions and often seriously injured bypoorly trained and supervised officers who routinely used forcefor the purpose of inflicting pain -- and got away with it becauseother officers covered up for them. The report also noted thatcorrection officers bent on vengeance against inmates were able tocarry out the beatings in areas of the complex they knew were freeof security cameras.

Beyond that, the investigation found that regulations requiringofficers to promptly report either using force or witnessing itsuse by others were routinely ignored. Mr. Bharara's officepointed to a horrific instance of this problem when it charged onecurrent and two former correction officers this month inconnection with the 2012 beating death of an inmate and aconspiracy to make it seem that the violence used against theinmate was justified.

Instead of suing the city itself, the federal Justice Departmentlast year joined a pending class action that charged theDepartment of Correction with failing to supervise officers whocommitted acts of brutality. The suit, Nunez v. City of New York,was well along in the litigation process, having been filed in2011 by the Legal Aid Society and two law firms, Emery CelliBrinckerhoff & Abady and Ropes & Gray.

After months of negotiations with the city, the parties announcedon June 22 that they had reached a settlement agreement containinga broad package of reforms that will be overseen by an independentmonitor who will closely assess compliance and submit periodicreports to the court. Among other things, the agreement requiresthe jail system to develop new policies for how force is used,reported and investigated; install thousands of new surveillancecameras; and improve staff recruitment and screening.

The agreement pays special attention to adolescents on RikersIsland, who were shown to be especially poorly treated in lastsummer's Justice Department report. For example, the officers whowork with adolescents will need to be better trained to handlethis age group. The disciplinary procedures used with them willneed to be revamped from top to bottom -- and solitaryconfinement, which is particularly harmful for the young, will nolonger be allowed for inmates under the age of 18.

The need for such a policy was underscored this month when a youngformer inmate who had spent nearly two years in solitaryconfinement at Rikers hanged himself at his family's home. Mostimportant, the city, with the help of the monitor, will try tofind a place away from Rikers Island to house young inmates.

The settlement agreement is an important first step. But giventhe city's past inability to stay focused on this problem, thecourts and the Justice Department will need to stay involved untilthe reform job is done.

On certain motorhomes, the rear drive axle stay rod may not havebeen fastened properly. This could cause the fastener to loosenand allow the stay rod to disconnect from the rear drive axlecausing vehicle instability, increasing the risk of a crashcausing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers willtighten fasteners to specification and apply thread locker.

NISSAN: Recalls 841 Cars Due to Defective Start/Stop Button-----------------------------------------------------------Starting date: June 25, 2015Type of communication: RecallSubcategory: Car, SUVNotification type: Safety MfrSystem: ElectricalUnits affected: 841Source of recall: Transport CanadaIdentification number: 2015282TCID number: 2015282On certain vehicles, due to a manufacturing defect the start/stopbutton could stick inside of its housing. If this occurs,vibration could cause the electrical components inside the buttonto contact repeatedly in quick succession and initiate theemergency engine shut off procedure while the vehicle is inmotion. This could result in increased steering and brakingeffort, a loss of motive power and would disable the supplementalrestraint systems (SRS), increasing the risk of a crash causinginjury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspectand repair defective start/stop switch.

NORTH DAKOTA DEVELOPMENTS: Investors File Class Action------------------------------------------------------The Peiffer Rosca Wolf law firm on June 25 disclosed that NorthDakota Developments investors have filed a class action lawsuit inthe United States District Court for the District of North Dakota.The Peiffer Rosca Wolf law firm, together with the Hudson Mallaney& Shindler law firm and North Dakota co-counsel represent theNorth Dakota Developments ("NDD") investors.

The NDD investors are seeking compensation for money they lost inthe NDD allegedly fraudulent investment scheme, from a NorthDakota law firm that, they allege in their complaint, played aninstrumental role in their investment process.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has recently sued NDD andalleged that the NDD organizers orchestrated a fraudulentinvestment scheme that defrauded investors from all over theworld.

NDD solicited investments to raise money for the construction ofshort-term housing in North Dakota and Montana near the Bakkenshale formation that would be utilized by oil-workers in need oflodging.

NDD offered investors the opportunity to purchase housing unitsthat were going to be part of a larger complex. Investors werepromised significant returns for their investments if they allowedan NDD-related managing entity to manage the units purchased byinvestors.

In reality, those returns never materialized, and the SEC hasalleged that the NDD perpetrators misused and converted investormoney.

If you are an NDD investor and wish to obtain additionalinformation about this matter, please visit www.nddinvestors.comor contact Alan Rosca or James Booker toll free at 888-998-0520 orvia email at arosca@prwlegal.com or by filling out the contactform on our website, www.nddinvestors.com

Old Fashioned Meat & Deli Ltd. is recalling Polish dried sausagefrom the marketplace due to possible Listeria monocytogenescontamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled productdescribed below.

The following product was sold at Old Fashioned Meat & Deli Ltd.,532 Cleveland Crescent S.E., Calgary, Alberta.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalledproducts should be thrown out or returned to the store where theywere purchased.

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look orsmell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can includevomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headacheand neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people withweakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Althoughinfected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-likesymptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infectionof the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness,people may die.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with theconsumption of this product.

This recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's(CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safetyinvestigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. Ifother high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify thepublic through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled productfrom the marketplace.

Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC Additional name name ---- product --- info ----- ------ ---------- ---------- None Polish Variable Sold from None Please note that dried June 10, 2015 this product was sausage up to and sold clerk- including June served without a 24, 2015 label or coding.

Consumers who are unsure if they have purchased the affectedproduct are advised to contact the retailer.

OPTIVER US: Settles Futures Trading Class Action for $16.75MM-------------------------------------------------------------Automated Trader reports that Optiver US and two related companiesand three former employees agreed in July 2014 to settle classaction litigation related to Optiver US's March 2007 energyfutures trading activity.

In July and August 2008, three groups of private plaintiffsbrought class action lawsuits alleging that Optiver US and theother defendants had manipulated the market for certain energyfutures contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange on certaindays in March 2007.

After six years of litigation, Optiver and the other defendantsdecided it was in their interest to settle these cases rather thancontinue expensive litigation. In settling, Optiver did not admitany wrongdoing, but decided that it was better to put this matterbehind it through settlement and to move forward.

Under terms of the settlement, which the court approved onJune 22, Optiver US paid $16.75 million into a settlement fund toresolve this litigation against all defendants.

House and Senate plans would halt a practice that allows lawenforcement to seize property from someone accused, but notconvicted, of certain crimes.

Supporters of the bills repeatedly equated the policy to theft.Rep. Jim Cox (R-Berks) said civil asset forfeiture is falling moreheavily on the poor because most seizures are small sums of cash,far outweighed by the costs of going to court to retrieve seizedbelongings.

"To hire an attorney for thousands of dollars to get back my $200,you say, 'eh, it's not worth it,'" Mr. Cox said. "The principleof the thing is worth it, obviously."

The legislation would require law enforcement to first get aconviction before seizing any property. Under the House andSenate bills, any money generated from the seizure or sale ofthose items could not go straight into the coffers of the lawenforcement unit.

The effort faces fierce opposition from prosecutors, some of whomuse civil forfeiture to help fund their investigations. ThePennsylvania District Attorneys Association calls the policy is animportant public safety tool and a way to take the profit out ofdrug crimes.

At a press conference on June 23, several supporters hastened toadd that they are not "anti-police."

"We support law enforcement, we support our district attorneys,"said Rep. Tim Krieger (R-Westmoreland). "But no one should havetheir property taken from them without being charged."

"We support the D.A.s," added Sen. Tony Williams (D-Philadelphia,"but we don't support robbery represented in government, wrappedin the flag."

The city of Philadelphia, along with its police department anddistrict attorney's office, is facing a class-action lawsuit fromproperty owners over its use of civil asset forfeiture.

PETROBRAS: Seeks Dismissal of Investor Class Action in New York---------------------------------------------------------------MercoPress reports that Brazil's state-run oil company Petrobrasurged a U.S. judge on June 25 to throw out an investors' classaction lawsuit claiming a multibillion-dollar bribery scandalovervalued it for years. Speaking at a hearing in federal courtin New York, Petrobras lawyer Roger Cooper said the company itselfwas a victim of the fraud, which he said was orchestrated by ahandful of individuals.

But the investors filing the case, who claim 98 billion dollars ofits stocks and bonds were artificially inflated by Petrobrasoverstating the value of some of its major projects, argued thereis no way company executives could have been in the dark.

"This is a vast fraud taking place possibly over two decades, andeveryone is asking the court and the public to believe, 'We didn'tknow,'" said Jeremy Lieberman, a lawyer for the investors. "Thequestion we would ask is: can they be serious?"

The hearing on the lawsuit, filed in December, came amid thelargest corruption investigation in Brazilian history into whatauthorities say was a years-long scheme involving price-fixing,bribery and political kickbacks.

Prosecutors have charged dozens of senior executives at a numberof Brazilian companies sending shockwaves through the country'seconomy and sending President Dilma Rousseff's popularity to all-time lows.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff did not rule on Petrobras' requestbut said he would do so within two weeks. The judge asked severalquestions during the hearing but did not indicate how he wasleaning.

Mr. Cooper told Judge Rakoff that the company was unaware of thealleged fraud, even if a few high-ranking employees were involved."The knowledge of those co-conspirators cannot be imputed to thecompany," he said.

The probe has continued to widen, with a prosecutor in Brazilsaying on June 23 it could extend to utility Eletrobras andseveral foreign companies.

Brazilian authorities detained the head of construction companyOdebrecht SA, and the CEO of builder Andrade Gutierrez.A British pension fund, Universities Superannuation Scheme, isleading the plaintiffs, who seek to bring claims on behalf ofanyone who purchased U.S. shares or bonds in Petrobras fromJanuary 2010 to March 2015.

Petrobras in April took a $17 billion write-down partially relatedto the bribery scandal. Ms. Lieberman said the investors remainskeptical that the losses tied to the scheme have been fullydivulged. The company's value has collapsed to approximately $60billion, after nearing $300 billion in 2008.

PFIZER INC: Berger & Montague Approved as Lead Counsel------------------------------------------------------Nicholas Malfitano, writing for PennRecord.com, reports that afederal court judge approved both a lead plaintiff and hisselection of lead counsel in a class action lawsuit alleging stockoptions for a large pharmaceutical company were manipulatedillegally.

On June 16, Judge Gerald S. McHugh of the U.S. District Court forthe Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted a motion fromplaintiff Stephen Rabin seeking to name himself as lead plaintiffand to appoint Lawrence Deutsch and Robin Switzenbaum of Berger &Montague (along with the firm of Bragar Eagel and Squire) as leadcounsel for this market manipulation case.

Mr. Rabin initially filed the litigation against "John Doe MarketMakers" on Feb. 5, alleging the defendant market makers illegallypre-arranged options trades for Pfizer stock on the PhiladelphiaStock Exchange, during a class period of Feb. 6, 2010 to thepresent.

The original version of the lawsuit didn't name specific marketmakers as defendants due to an inability to ascertain theiridentities from public sources, but Judge McHugh granted a motionon for expedited discovery on April 2. This motion allowed Mr.Rabin's counsel to identify 20 defendants from NASDAQ records --an action usually not permitted until motions to dismiss areresolved, per the Private Securities Litigation Act of 1994, butnonetheless granted.

The suit alleges they "inflated the size of the options openinterest pool for Pfizer stock by flooding the market with over amillion additional option contracts one day before the ex-dividenddate of (Pfizer) common stock."

The result, the lawsuit claims, is that the bulk of dividendpayments would go to market makers rather than to the plaintiffs.The lawsuit alleges the actions of market makers have damagedother investors by "hundreds of millions of dollars."

The plaintiffs are represented by Deutsch, Switzenbaum and PhyllisParker of Berger & Montague and Deborah R. Gross of The LawOffices of Bernard M. Gross, all in Philadelphia; and JeffreySquire and Lawrence Eagel of Bragar Eagel & Squire, in New York,N.Y.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case2:15-cv-00551

PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Faces Probe Over California Beach Oil Spill----------------------------------------------------------------Michael Blood and Brian Melley, writing for Daily Journal, reportthat firefighters investigating a reported petroleum stench at aCalifornia beach last month didn't take long to find a spill --oil was spreading across the sand and into the surf. Tracing thesource, they found crude gushing from a bluff like a fire hose"without a nozzle," records show.

But critical time would elapse before the operator of a nearbypipeline confirmed that it had ruptured and spewed the oil. Anemployee at the scene for Plains All American Pipeline initiallysuggested to firefighters that the spill "was too big to be fromtheir pipeline," according to the documents obtained by TheAssociated Press.

The description of what firefighters found May 19 at Refugio StateBeach was detailed in records Santa Barbara County firefightersfiled with state officials. It indicates that firefighters whoarrived just before noon quickly recognized that "some sort ofleak or spill had occurred."

A Plains company spokeswoman would not comment on June 25 on whyit took until later in the afternoon for its workers to confirmthe line was cracked and spilling thousands of gallons of oil ontothe sand and water west of Santa Barbara.

Plains is facing scrutiny from federal regulators and lawmakersover the spill, which washed up goo on beaches as far as 100 milesaway. The failed pipeline released up to 101,000 gallons, and anestimated 21,000 gallons reached the water.

The U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee opened aninvestigation on June 25 and asked the company for detailedinformation on maintenance of the line, including how it addressedcorrosion. The panel also wants the company to explain what itdid in the hours leading up to the break and how it reported theproblem.

A key issue has been how long it took the Texas-based company torelay information on the break to the federal government.Internal planning documents stress the importance of notifying thegovernment of a leak as quickly as possible.

Federal regulations require the company to notify the NationalResponse Center, a clearinghouse for reports of hazardous-materialreleases, "at the earliest practicable moment." State lawrequires immediate notification of a release or a threatenedrelease. Company employees at the scene did not confirm a leakuntil about 1:30 p.m., and it would be nearly 3 p.m. before thecompany would contact the response center. By then, the federalresponse led by the Coast Guard was underway.

The federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administrationis investigating the cause of the accident, and state prosecutorshave been considering potential charges against the company. Thefederal agency released preliminary findings earlier this monththat the break occurred along a badly corroded section that hadworn away to a fraction of an inch in thickness.

At a state legislative hearing on June 26 in Santa Barbara, MarkS. Ghilarducci, director of the Governor's Office of EmergencyServices, was asked if the company met state requirements forprompt notification.

State prosecutors have been considering potential charges againstthe company.

In a separate letter on June 25, the House committee asked thepipeline administration for an update of what it called longoverdue pipeline safety rules. The panel said the Californiaspill raised questions about the agency's oversight of pipelinesafety and added that the agency had failed to complete 17 of 42requirements Congress outlined in 2011 to help prevent spills.

Cleanup costs have reached $92 million.

Federal elected officials released records from Plains AllAmerican on June 24 that provided a look inside a company tryingto contend with what became the largest coastal oil spill inCalifornia in 25 years. Those records said that once companyworkers confirmed oil was in the ocean, two employees rode alongthe pipeline to look for a source. "It was not readily apparentfrom their vantage point near the beach that the oil originated"from the company pipeline, they said. It was later determined theoil traveled to the beach down a culvert near the break. By thetime company employees confirmed the spill, it was at least anhour after firefighters reported oil on the beach.

Plains spokeswoman Meredith Matthews said on June 24 that companypersonnel were on the beach with firefighters around the same timelocal officials alerted the response center to the spill. "Theresponse was not delayed," she said.

Popular campgrounds have been closed, nearby commercial fishinghas been prohibited and nearly 300 marine mammals and birds havebeen found dead after the spill.

At the legislative hearing, Janet Wolf, chair of the county boardof supervisors, said county officials were concerned the pipelinecompany was exerting too much influence on operations followingthe spill, while local officials were being excluded. She saidPlains All American executives were allowed "to make whateverstatements or representations they wanted" at news conferencesfollowing the spill, while the county's statements were vetted.

"They are embedded in every aspect of operations and meetings thateven I, a local elected official . . . was not permitted toattend," Ms. Wolf said.

This Recall involves the Worx 12 Amp Electric blower / vacuum. Therecalled products are black in colour, measure 28 centimeters (11inches) by 50 centimeters (19.5 inches) and have the "Worx" logoprinted on the side of the motor housing.

The following model number and serial numbers are included in thisrecall:

PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: August 3 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set--------------------------------------------------------Ryan & Maniskas, LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit hasbeen filed in United States District Court for the CentralDistrict of California on behalf of all persons or entities thatpurchased the common stock of Puma Biotechnology, Inc. ("Puma" orthe "Company") between July 23, 2014 and May 13, 2015, inclusive(the "Class Period").

Puma shareholders may, no later than August 3, 2015, move theCourt for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class. If youpurchased shares of Puma and would like to learn more about theseclaims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have anyquestions concerning this announcement or your rights, contactRichard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or tosign up online, visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/pbyi

Puma is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on in-licensingcancer drug candidates that have already undergone or completedclinical testing. The complaint alleges that Puma made falseand/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose inviolation of the securities laws that: (1) the Company's NDAfiling would be for a positive early stage breast cancerindication, instead of the previously announced metastatic breastcancer; (2) Puma would need to submit additional safety data frompreclinical carcinogenicity studies with its NDA filing, whichPuma did not have; (3) the additional studies required would pushthe timeline for filing the NDA into the first quarter of 2016;(4) the Company overstated results from its Phase III ExteNETTrial; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Puma lacked areasonable basis for their positive statements concerning theCompany's outlook, as well as the ongoing ExteNET trial. When thetruth was revealed, the stock dropped causing damage to investors.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than August 3,2015, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of theclass. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts onbehalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Inorder to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determinethat the class member's claim is typical of the claims of otherclass members, and that the class member will adequately representthe class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class membersmay together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share inany recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether ornot to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Ryan & Maniskas,LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel inthis action.

QRX PHARMA: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action in New York-----------------------------------------------------------------Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP on June 23 disclosed that itfiled a securities class action complaint against QRx Pharma, Ltd.("QRx" or "the Company") and the Company's former Chief ExecutiveOfficer ("CEO") John Holaday in the United States District Courtfor the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit allegesviolations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and was filed onbehalf of all purchasers of QRx American Depository Receipts("ADRs") between January 24, 2011 and April 23, 2014, inclusive(the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that QRx issued false and misleading publicstatements and omitted material facts concerning the commercialprospects for its experiment drug Moxduo. Specifically, thecomplaint alleges that QRx failed to disclose to investors that itreceived a "no agreement letter" from the Food and DrugAdministration ("FDA") regarding its Moxduo trials and furthermisrepresented and concealed other material facts concerning itsattempts to get Moxduo approved. Upon the disclosure of an FDAmemorandum which denied QRx's application to get Moxduo approved,the price of QRx ADRs plummeted over 83% on April 23, 2014.

If you purchased QRx ADRs during the Class Period, you may movethe Court no later than August 24, 2015 to serve as leadplaintiff. Any member of the investor class may move the Court toserve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice, or maychoose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If youwish to discuss this action or have questions concerning thisnotice or your rights, please contact Michael Burnett, Esq. atScott+Scott (mburnett@scott-scott.com (800) 404-7770, (860) 537-5537, or visit the Scott+Scott website --http://www.scott-scott.com-- for more information. There is no cost or fee to you.

Scott+Scott is a class action law firm in the United States, withoffices in New York, Connecticut, Ohio and California. The firmhas been directly responsible for the recovery of hundreds ofmillions of dollars on behalf of its clients through theprosecution of major securities, antitrust and employee retirementplan class action lawsuits. The firm represents pension funds,foundations, individuals, businesses, and other entitiesworldwide.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMASOUTHERN DIVISION

LOCAL 703, I.B. OF T. GROCERY AND FOODEMPLOYEES WELFARE FUND, et al., Individuallyand on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

REGIONS FINANCIAL CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-02847-IPJCLASS ACTIONSUMMARY NOTICE

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED REGIONS FINANCIALCORPORATION ("REGIONS FINANCIAL") COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIODFROM FEBRUARY 27, 2008, THROUGH AND INCLUDING JANUARY 19, 2009

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United StatesDistrict Court for the Northern District of Alabama, SouthernDivision, that a hearing will be held on September 9, 2015, at10:00 a.m., at the United States District Court, Northern Districtof Alabama, Southern Division, Hugo L. Black U.S. Courthouse, 1729Fifth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203, for the purpose ofdetermining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims inthe Action for the amount of $90,000,000.00 plus interest, shouldbe approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2)whether a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice("Judgment") should be entered by the Court dismissing the Actionwith prejudice and releasing the Released Claims; (3) whether thePlan of Distribution of Settlement Proceeds is fair, reasonable,and adequate and should be approved; and (4) whether theapplication of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees,costs, and expenses and Lead Plaintiffs' expenses should beapproved.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED REGIONS FINANCIAL COMMON STOCK DURINGTHE TIME PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 27, 2008, THROUGH AND INCLUDINGJANUARY 19, 2009, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENTOF THIS ACTION, INCLUDING THE RELEASE AND EXTINGUISHMENT OF CLAIMSYOU MAY POSSESS RELATING TO YOUR PURCHASE OR ACQUISITION OFREGIONS FINANCIAL COMMON STOCK DURING THE CLASS PERIOD. If youhave not received a detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement, Motionfor Attorneys' Fees and Settlement Fairness Hearing ("Notice") anda copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtaincopies by writing to Regions Financial Securities Litigation,Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 808012,Petaluma, CA 94975-8012, or on the Internet atwww.regionsfinancialsecuritieslitigation.com

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distributionof the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim andRelease by mail or online so that it is postmarked (if mailed) orreceived (if filed electronically) no later than September 9,2015, establishing that you are entitled to recovery.

If you purchased or acquired Regions Financial common stock duringthe Class Period and you desire to be excluded from the Class, youmust submit a request for exclusion so that it is received nolater than August 19, 2015, in the manner and form explained inthe detailed Notice referred to above. If you submitted a requestfor exclusion in connection with the Notice of Pendency of ClassAction you received in March 2015, do not submit another one. Allmembers of the Class who do not timely and validly requestexclusion from the Class will be bound by any judgment entered inthe Action pursuant to the Stipulation and Agreement ofSettlement.

Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Distribution, or thefees and expense application must be received, not simplypostmarked, by each of the following recipients no later thanAugust 18, 2015:

CLERK OF THE COURTUnited States District CourtNorthern District of Alabama, Southern DivisionHugo L. Black U.S. Courthouse1729 Fifth Avenue NorthBirmingham, AL 35203

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK 'S OFFICE REGARDINGTHIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, youmay contact Lead Counsel at the address listed above.

DATED: May 27, 2015 BY ORDER OF THE COURTUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMASOUTHERN DIVISION

RJ VALLEE: Faces Gasoline Price-Fixing Class Action---------------------------------------------------WCAX News reports that a driver from Franklin County wantsgasoline distributors in Northwestern Vermont to pay up for fixingprices. Jacob Kent filed a class action suit against the fourmain gas suppliers in the area -- RJ Vallee, which ownsMaplefields; Weco, which owns Champlain farms; Champlain OilCompany; and SB Collins, which owns Jolley Marts. Mr. Kent'sattorney alleges the companies work together to keep gas pricesartificially high, making this part of Vermont one of the ten mostprofitable in the country for gasoline dealers. He says thatgives the dealers an unfair advantage. Mr. Kent's lawsuit aims torecover money overpaid by drivers along with financial damages.

No response yet from the companies being sued.

ROCKPORT, MA: Long Beach Residents File Class Action Over Leases----------------------------------------------------------------Dimitra Lavrakas, writing for Gloucester Times, reports that agroup of Long Beach residents have filed suit against the townover their leases, and a hearing will be held to decide whetherthe class action suit is viable.

Long Beach resident Steve Sheehan is the lead plaintiff in theclass action lawsuit filed against the Town of Rockport on June 15over escalating lease fees. The suit also claims a clause in thenew lease breaches the covenant of quiet enjoyment guaranteed byMassachusetts law by allowing residents to access others' propertyto get to their own and allowing public pedestrians to usetenants' property to access the beach.

The plaintiffs also say the town is attempting to contract awayits responsibility as landlord. An estimated 154 Long Beachproperty owners are included in the class for the suit.

"The residents had a meeting and a formal vote was takenoverwhelmingly to go forward with the suit," said Mr. Sheehan.Saying the members of the class action suit are "united inpurpose, highly organized and exceptionally well prepared, andsufficiently funded," Mr. Sheehan said that claimants lament thisadversarial step after residents have enjoyed a "mutuallybeneficial and long-standing relationship for well over 100years," with the town and fellow Rockport residents.

"We have presented ourselves as the most reasonable party,"Mr. Sheehan said. "We've asked for dialogue, but the town refusedto hold constructive dialogue, even though we tried for 18months."

Rubin and Rudman LLP, a Boston-based law firm, was hired in 2012to represent the group of residents when lease negotiations werecompleted, and will represent the class in Lawrence Superior Courton June 30, Judge Robert Cornetta presiding.

SEALED AIR: Faces Class Action Over Bonus Program-------------------------------------------------GoUpStates.com reports that two people employed with Sealed AirCorp.'s Spartanburg facility have filed a class action lawsuit infederal court in New Jersey.

The employees claim that the corporation did not pay bonuses tothem and thousands of other employees. According to the lawsuit,Sealed Air pays eligible employees "incentive-based compensation"along with a salary, but changed the performance rating of theemployees. The plaintiffs assert that they met work performancegoals during 2012 that made them eligible to receive a bonusbefore a "company-wide decision to retroactively exclude 15percent" of participants from receiving bonuses under a new ratingsystem. The plaintiffs have asked for unspecified damages,attorneys' fees and an injunction that would stop Sealed Air fromcontinuing the policy that they argue is illegal.

Sealed Air denied the allegations in its response to the lawsuit.

The company asserts that eligible employees may be entitled toparticipate in its annual bonus program. It also claims that theplaintiffs received all salary and wages due to them and asks thatthe suit be dismissed and that the defendants receive legal feesand other damages. Plaintiffs have until July 6 to respond.

Sealed Air announced in July 2014 that it would invest $57 millionto relocate its corporate headquarters from Elmwood Park, N.J., toCharlotte, N.C.

The maker of packaging and cleaning products for the health andfood industries operates a plant in Duncan near the intersectionof Highway 290 and Interstate 85 that it acquired in 1998. Atleast 600 jobs are expected to be relocated from Duncan toCharlotte.

SEOUL SUPERMARKET: Faces "Bae" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime----------------------------------------------------------------Eun Joo Bae, on behalf of themselves and all other similarlysituated known and unknown v. Seoul Supermarket, Inc. and Suk HuiPark, Case No. 1:15-cv-05782 (N.D. Ill., June 30, 2015), isbrought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wagesfor work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a grocery store within the State ofIllinois.

SHAKA ENTERTAINMENT: Music Festival Ticketholders Mull Class Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------Brigette Namata, writing for KHON2, reports that the June 20 musicfestival fiasco angered thousands of ticket-holders and now thestate is taking action. At least 2,000 ticket-holdersanticipating Paradise Music Festival were stunned when organizersmoved the Kahuku concert. In a last-minute change, the concert'slineup was split between three separate club venues.

Shaka Entertainment, the company behind the festival, promisedrefunds, but ticket-holders said they were denied refunds fromFlavorus, the online ticket website.

The state consumer office has now opened an investigation. Whenasked if the state has ever handled similar cases,Stephen Levins, executive director for the state Department ofCommerce and Consumer Affairs, said "Not to this magnitude. We'vehad cases over the years where shows have been canceled and inmost instances, consumers get their money back."

Mr. Moffatt, who is not affiliated with Shaka Entertainment, sayshe believes the intentions were good, but it was a costly mistakefor the new company.

"You have an entrance to a venue, and you had access to it -- soyou thought -- and come the day of the show, you didn't," he said."It was a sad mistake."

"Anyone can call themselves a promoter. That's why its importantfor people . . . to the best of their ability, look into who ispromoting a concert," Mr. Levins said.

KHON showed Mr. Levins an email a ticket-holder received from thewebsite. The email stated the "terms of purchase" clearly state"ticket holder is aware the venue and talent are subject tochange."

Since the event turned into a bar crawl, Flavorus could not issuerefunds.

"Just because a vendor or merchant tells you this is the way itis, that doesn't mean that is the way it is," said Mr. Levins."That may be they're saying, but their representation may in factbe unreasonable. If someone purchased a ticket, for instance,with the idea the concert was in town and all of a sudden theconcert is going to be on the North Shore -- to give you ahypothetical question -- we would the position that it's totallyunreasonable and the consumer should not be burdened with thatkind of situation, so it depends on the facts."

KHON2 learned that the incident has also prompted plans for aclass-action lawsuit against Shaka Entertainment by hundreds ofunhappy ticket holders.

On Shaka Entertainment's Facebook page, the company apologized forthe "turn of events" and said Flavorus, the ticketing website,will issue refunds to anyone who did not attend the event.

"We currently are working with Flavorus and all online ticketsthat weren't used at the clubs can be refunded through them.Everyone that contacted Flavorus should either already be refundedor receiving a refund shortly. If you didn't attend and haven'tcontacted Flavorus yet make sure to contact them by [June 25].For everyone with physical tickets, all promoters have beennotified and are giving refunds. We truly do apologize toeveryone that had to endure this mess, so we have decided to giveeveryone that pushed through and attended a 50% discount for ournext event."

Shaka Entertainment says it is planning another event later thisyear.

SOLAZYME INC: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action------------------------------------------------------------Labaton Sucharow LLP on June 24 filed a securities class actionlawsuit on June 24, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for theNorthern District of California. The lawsuit was filed on behalfof all persons or entities who, between February 27, 2014 andNovember 5, 2014, inclusive, purchased or otherwise acquired thepublicly traded securities of Solazyme, Inc. including certainsecurities issued by Solazyme pursuant and/or traceable to eitherof two registered public offerings on or about March 27, 2014.

If you purchased or acquired publicly traded Solazyme securitiesduring the Class Period, you are a member of the "Class" and maybe able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiffmotion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court for theNorthern District of California no later than August 24, 2015. Alead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absentmembers of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as leadplaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action. If youare a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you canshare in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may retaincounsel of your choice to represent you in this action.

If you would like to consider serving as lead plaintiff or haveany questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Natalie M.Mackiel, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via emailat nmackiel@labaton.com

Solazyme is a bioproducts company that produces oils fromrenewable sources. The Company's technology focuses on the use ofalgae as part of a fermentation process that transforms plantmaterials into oils for use in a range of products, includingskincare, food goods, and industrial applications. Solazymemaintains its principal executive offices in South San Francisco,California.

The complaint charges Solazyme and certain of its officers anddirectors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaintalleges that certain Defendants made false and misleadingstatements and concealed material information relating to theconstruction progress, development, and expected productioncapacity of the Company's renewable oils production facilitylocated in Moema, Brazil. Specifically, Defendants causedSolazyme securities to trade at artificially inflated prices byimproperly concealing ongoing construction delays due toinsufficient access to electricity and steam utility services.These challenges prohibited the Moema Facility from scaling itscapacity production as projected.

Additionally, the complaint alleges that Solazyme, certain of itsofficers and directors, and the underwriters of the Offeringsviolated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of1933. The complaint alleges that certain Defendants made falseand misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverseinformation in offering documents filed with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission in connection with the issuance of (i)approximately $149.5 million in convertible notes on or aboutMarch 27, 2014, and (ii) 5.75 million shares of common stock onthe same day at $11.00 per share for aggregate gross proceeds ofapproximately $63.25 million.

The truth regarding the construction delays at the Moema Facility,and resulting diminished production capacity, was revealed onNovember 5, 2014, when the Company disclosed that it would "narrow[its] production focus to smaller volumes of higher valueproducts" due to continued issues generating consistent power andsteam. In reaction to this disclosure, Solazyme's stock pricedeclined $4.35 per share, or 58.08 percent, to close at $3.14 pershare following the next trading session on November 6, 2014.Similarly, the market price of Solazyme's notes declined by$235.00 per note from the prior reported trade on November 4,2014, or 30.32 percent, to close at $540.00 per note following thenext session in which the notes traded on November 7, 2014.

The plaintiff is represented by Labaton Sucharow --http://www.labaton.com-- which represents many of the largest pension funds in the United States and internationally withcollective assets under management of more than $2 trillion.Labaton Sucharow's litigation reputation is built on its halfcentury of securities litigation experience, 60 full-timeattorneys, and in-house team of investigators, financial analysts,and forensic accountants. Labaton Sucharow has been recognizedfor its excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistentlyranked in leading industry publications. Offices are located inNew York, NY and Wilmington, DE.

"It's no more desperate than the lawyers who are putting the classaction together in the first place."

The lawyer leading the class action, Grant Cameron, said the offershowed "great concern" on Southern Response's part.

"[They're concerned] that they may be held to account to paypolicy holders what they're entitled to.

"We're very happy for people to bring those questions to us so wecan discuss them."

Mr. Cameron refused to say how many Southern Response customershad joined the class action. He expected proceedings in the caseto be filed next month.

A Southern Response spokeswoman said the company was "genuinelyconcerned" about the risks for customers joining the class actioncase.

"[This] is to ensure that all our customers have access to alawyer . . . for the purpose of reviewing any class actioncontractual documents, so that they can gain a full understandingof what they could be signing up for."

Customers could engage any New Zealand lawyer not involved in theclass action, she said. Southern Response would pay for a two-hour.

This recall involves SR Suntour N.A. bicycle forks that have beenincorporated into finished bicycles under the following brands:GT, Giant, INA International, Scott and Trek bicycles. Cannondale,Diamondback and Schwinn brands with the potentially affected forkswere not sold in Canada.

The model number, serial number range and size are verticallyetched on the bicycle fork crown. A detailed list of the specificmodel numbers included in the recall is on the firm's website.

If the fixing bolt breaks, the bicycle fork may not properlyfunction as a shock absorber. The top part of the fork canseparate from the bottom part of the fork if the fork is liftedfrom the ground, posing a fall hazard to the rider.

Neither Health Canada nor SR Suntour N.A. has received any reportsof consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of thesebicycle forks in Canada.

In the United States, SR Suntour N.A. has received 2 reports ofconsumer incidents involving minor injuries, such as scrapes.

Approximately 33,644 recalled forks were sold in Canada, andapproximately 67,863 were sold in the United States.

The recalled products were sold at authorized GT, Giant, INAInternational, Scott and Trek dealers from November 2014 to June2015.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: SR Suntour Machinery (Kunshan) Co. Ltd. Kunshan CHINA

Consumers should immediately stop using the bicycles equipped withthese forks and contact their retailer for a free inspection andrepair if necessary. The repair will consist of replacement ofthe fixing bolt, if needed.

Consumers should immediately stop using the affected products andcontact the supplier from whom they purchased the screen to returnthe product and receive a refund.

For more information, consumers with affected products may contactStampede Presentation Products (Canada) Inc. by telephone at 1-855-498-0034 or visit the Mustang website.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibitsrecalled products from being redistributed, sold or even givenaway in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any healthor safety incidents related to the use of this product or anyother consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the ConsumerProduct Incident Report Form.

On certain vehicles, the Occupant Control Unit (OCU) of the ODS(Occupant Detection System) may incorrectly identify a frontpassenger occupant when seated in the front passenger seat if thepassenger touches a metal part of the vehicle that is electricallygrounded (i.e. forward/reward seat adjustment lever) while usingan IPod or cell phone plugged into the accessory power outlet.This may result in the deactivation of the ODS, and cause the AirBag Warning Light to illuminate and the Passenger Air BagIndicator would illuminate "OFF", providing a visual warning thatthe air bag system is not operating properly. Failure of thepassenger frontal airbag to deploy during a crash (wheredeployment is warranted) could increase the risk of personalinjury to the seat occupant. Correction: Dealers will replace theOccupant Control Unit (OCU) with a revised one.

The United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and EmployersMidwest Health Benefits Fund, or UFCW, and the Laborers Health andWelfare Trust Fund for Northern California filed the lawsuit onbehalf of a class of all purchasers of Novartis' Gleevec drug inthe U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts onJune 22.

The employee welfare benefit plans, according to their filing,have paid some or all of the price of 100 mg and 400 mg Gleevectablets on behalf of their plan participants.

Both argue they will pay more for the drug -- used in treatingpatients diagnosed with chronic myeloid leukemia, a cancer of theblood and bone marrow -- than they would have absent Novartis'"unlawful scheme" to prevent and delay its generic entry.

Gleevec, which costs about $9,000 a month, was expected to gogeneric effective July 5.

The Food and Drug Administration already has cleared two genericapplications, but Novartis has barred Sun Pharma from releasingits generic version of Gleevec for at least an additional sevenmonths by way of a "sham" patent infringement lawsuit.

According to the 82-page proposed class action, Novartisunlawfully listed invalid follow-on patents in the FDA's OrangeBook.

The publication "Approved Drug Products with TherapeuticEquivalence Evaluations," commonly known as the Orange Book,identifies drug products approved on the basis of safety andeffectiveness by the FDA under the Federal Food Drug and CosmeticAct. In particular, at issue is Novartis' U.S. Patent No.6,894,051. The '051 patent, which expires in November 2019, isamong those alleged invalid follow-on patents.

The class action contends that the U.S. Patent and TrademarkOffice mistakenly issued the patent.

"But in the stark light of patent litigation alleging infringementof the '051, Novartis knew that if a court were to eventually ruleon the validity issue after deliberative proceedings, the '051patent would be held invalid," the class action alleges.

Sun Pharma, in June 2013, sued Novartis in the U.S. District Courtfor the District of New Jersey, seeking a declaratory judgmentthat Sun Pharma was not infringing the '051 patent and/or that the'051 patent was invalid or otherwise unenforceable.

A month later, Novartis filed counterclaims against Sun Pharma,alleging infringement of the '051 patent and also seeking adeclaration that the '051 patent was valid and enforceable.

"Novartis had enormous incentives to settle the patentinfringement litigation and avoid competition," the class actionalleges. "By 2013, Gleevec was a roughly $2 billion drug. Losinga substantial portion of that revenue stream -- as Novartis wouldhave if the patents were held by a court to be invalid,unenforceable, or not infringed -- would have drastically affectedNovartis' profits in 2013 and subsequent years."

Last year -- less than a year into the underlying litigation --Novartis and Sun Pharma agreed to settle the patent lawsuit.

The terms were not revealed, except that both parties announcedthat under their agreement Sun Pharma would be permitted to launchits generic version of Gleevec as of Feb. 1, 2016.

The class action contends that if Novartis had never "brandished"the '051 patent against Sun Pharma, there never would have beenthe need for the litigation between the two companies, there neverwould have been a settlement between them and there never wouldhave been the agreement to delay the generic's entry.

"Novartis should rightly enjoy exclusivity for Gleevec through theexpiry of the original compound patent in early July 2015 (havinggrossed over $13.5 billion in U.S. sales over the years from thedrug, which now yields about $2 billion per year)," the classaction states.

UFCW and Laborers, in their class action, are seeking a permanentinjunction to allow generic competition.

"If Novartis played by the rules, a generic version of Gleevecwould be available for cancer patients this July, but Novartiswants to illegally reap benefits from its sham of a patentinfringement suit," Thomas M. Sobol, a partner at Hagens BermanSobol Shapiro LLP. The consumer rights class action law firm isamong those firms representing the proposed class of plaintiffs.

The firm notes that the lawsuit marks the first time purchasers ofprescription drugs have sought injunctive relief to try to preventantitrust overcharges or damages stemming from delayed launch ofgeneric drugs.

Novartis, in a company statement, said it believes the claims are"unsubstantiated."

"The patents covering Gleevec remain legally in force and arecovered by a statutory presumption of validity," it said. "Thepatents are clearly directed to our marketed product and areproperly listed in the FDA's Orange Book and the settlement withSun Pharma is a lawful settlement agreement resolving thedeclaratory judgment action filed by Sun Pharma challenging thevalidity of one of the Gleevec patents.

Pointing to the settlement with Sun Pharma last year, Novartissaid patents are "vital" to the ability of companies such asitself to invest in high-risk research to advance breakthroughtreatments for patients without treatment options.

"This settlement validates the Novartis patents while allowing SunPharma's subsidiary to enter the market with its generic product,"the company said. District Judge Allison Burroughs is presidingover the case.

Brand Common name Size Code(s) on UPC name ----------- ---- product --- ----- ---------- Sunripe Ingrid's Caesar 250 ml All codes 4 304304- Dressing Creamy where mustard 304304 is not declared on the label. Sunripe Ingrid's Country 250 ml All codes 0 201106- Caesar Dressing where mustard 03993 is not declared on the label. Sunripe Salad Sun of 250 ml All codes 0 201242- Ceazar with where mustard 6990 Salad is not Preparations declared on the label.

SVB: Class Action Over Personal Care Budget Fiasco Mulled---------------------------------------------------------DutchNews.nl reports that care providers whose payments have beendelayed by the chaos surrounding the personal care budget arebeing invited to join a class action against the social insurancebank SVB. The new system for administering the personal carebudget (pgb) was introduced in January. To avoid fraud, paymentsare no longer made to the patient. Carers are now paid by the SVBbut are receiving payment too late or not at all. Recently, acarer won a court case for compensation for late payment from theSVB. The judge decreed that the same employment law applies inthis case as in the relationship between an employer and anemployee, and gave the woman an increase of 25%.

Her lawyer, Eric van der Goot, has now set up the site PGB-claimand is inviting other carers to join in a class action against theSVB. The administrative chaos at the SVB has been the subject ofa parliamentary debate six times this year and junior healthminister Marten van Rijn is under great pressure to deal with thesituation.

On certain school buses, the stem which joins the outsideemergency door handle to the emergency door opening mechanism maypotentially corrode. Excessive material loss of the stem due tocorrosion could result in the outside handle separating from thedoor mechanism while trying to open the door from the exterior ofthe bus. In the event of an emergency, this could delay evacuationof the vehicle and increase the risk of injury to occupants.Correction: Dealers will inspect the stems and either replace orprotect them against further corrosion.

On certain buses, the stem which joins the outside emergency doorhandle to the emergency door opening mechanism may potentiallycorrode. Excessive material loss of the stem due to corrosioncould result in the outside handle separating from the doormechanism while trying to open the door from the exterior of thebus. In the event of an emergency, this could delay evacuation ofthe vehicle and increase the risk of injury to occupants.Correction: Dealers will inspect the stems and either replace orprotect them agianst further corrosion.

TOP RANK: July 30 Hearing on Consolidation of Class Suits---------------------------------------------------------Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reportsthat more than 40 class actions have been filed over the highlypublicized fight between Floyd Mayweather and Emmanuel "Manny"Pacquiao, alleging that the boxers, their promoters and the cablenetworks airing the match misled viewers about the "Fight of theCentury."

Just after the May 2 fight, loser Pacquiao revealed that he hadsuffered a pre-existing torn rotator cuff prior to stepping intothe ring at the MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas. The suits, filed onbehalf of individuals in 14 states, most of whom paid $89.95 towatch the fight on HBO and Showtime pay-per-view, claim that thepromoters duped viewers into buying the program. Each boxer mademore than $100 million from the fight.

"By failing to disclose that Pacquiao was injured prior to thefight, while still promoting and advertising the fight toplaintiffs and members of the classes and the public as a fair andhonest sporting event between two healthy and uninjuredparticipants, plaintiffs and the members of the classesrepresented in the related federal actions were deprived of whatthey paid for and injured financially," wrote Hart Robinovitch, aplaintiffs lawyer who moved on May 8 to consolidate all the casesin the Central District of California given that Pacquiao injuredhis shoulder and was treated by doctors in Los Angeles prior tothe fight. Mr. Robinovitch, a partner in the Scottsdale, Arizona,office of Minneapolis-based Zimmerman Reed, did not return a callfor comment.

The suits name various defendants including the fight's promoter,Top Rank Inc., and two of its principals, Robert Arum and ToddDuBoef; Pacquiao and his adviser, Michael Koncz, and trainerFrederick Roach; and Mayweather and his promoter, MayweatherPromotions LLC.

Some of the suits also named producers Home Box Office Inc. andShowtime Networks Inc., both based in New York. HBO, which ispart of Time Warner Inc., along with Pacquiao and those affiliatedwith him, filed a combined June 4 court paper supportingcoordination in the Central District of California.

"The lawsuits contain no legally valid claims, and we look forwardto their prompt dismissal," Daniel Petrocelli --dpetrocelli@omm.com -- chairman of the trial practice committee atO'Melveny & Myers, who represents the defendants, wrote in anemail.

Showtime, which is part of CBS Corp., argued in a separate June 4filing for consolidation in Nevada, citing Pacquiao's failure toreport the injury to the Nevada Athletic Commission. Itsattorney, Yehudah Buchweitz -- yehudah.buchweitz@weil.com -- apartner at New York's Weil, Gotshal & Manges, declined to comment.

In another June 4 filing, an attorney for the Mayweatherdefendants also argued that the cases should be consolidated inNevada. Mayweather's attorney, Ruth Bahe-Jachna --baher@gtlaw.com -- co-chairwoman of the class action litigationgroup and a shareholder in the Chicago office of GreenbergTraurig, did not respond to a request for comment.

Other plaintiffs attorneys have pushed for venues in New York,New Jersey, Michigan, Florida and Illinois.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is scheduledto hear arguments on consolidating the cases at its July 30hearing in San Francisco.

TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action----------------------------------------------------------------Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on June 22 disclosed that a classaction has been commenced in the United States District Court forthe Northern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of TrinityIndustries, Inc. publicly traded securities during the periodbetween February 16, 2012 and April 29, 2015 (the "Class Period").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court nolater than 60 days from April 28, 2015. If you wish to discussthis action or have any questions concerning this notice or yourrights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, DarrenRobbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or viae-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve aslead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose todo nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Trinity and certain of its officers anddirectors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.Trinity manufacturers transportation, construction and industrialproducts.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendantsmade false and misleading statements and/or failed to discloseadverse information regarding Trinity's business and prospects,and specifically about the safety of its highway guardrailsystems. As a result of these false and misleading statementsand/or omissions, Trinity securities traded at artificiallyinflated prices during the Class Period, with its stock pricereaching a high of over $50 per share.

On April 21, 2015, an article was published on Bloomberg News,stating that the U.S. Justice Department ("DOJ") was conducting acriminal investigation into the Federal Highway Administration'scontinued support of Trinity's highway guardrail system and thatthe Company had engaged in cost-cutting alterations to its ET-PlusSystem guardrails, which compromised the safety of the units,which were linked to at least eight deaths. As a result of thisnews, the price of Trinity stock fell $3.43 per share to close at$32.82 per share on April 22, 2015, a one-day decline of over 9%.Subsequently, on April 24, 2015, Trinity confirmed that it was thetarget of a DOJ investigation. On this news, the price of Trinitystock fell $4.66 per share, to close at $28.70 per share, a one-day decline of nearly 14%.

Then, on April 29, 2015, Bloomberg News reported that Trinity hadreceived a subpoena from the DOJ regarding "its allegedlydefective guardrail safety system" and that the DOJ sought"documents from 1999 and later regarding Trinity's guardrail endterminals." As a result of this news, the price of Trinity stockdropped another $0.98 per share to close at $27.09 per share onApril 30, 2015, a one-day decline of 3.5%.

Robbins Geller, with 200 lawyers in ten offices, represents U.S.and international institutional investors in contingency-basedsecurities and corporate litigation. The firm has obtained manyof the largest securities class action recoveries in history andwas ranked first in both the amount and number of shareholderclass action recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 report for 2014.

UNITED FURNITURE: Appeals Court Upholds Class Action Dismissal--------------------------------------------------------------Joan M. Young, Esq. -- joan.young@mcmillan.ca -- of McMillan LLP,in an article for Lexology, reports that the British ColumbiaCourt of Appeal, in Marshall v. United Furniture Warehouse LimitedPartnerships, upheld a chambers judge's decision denyingcertification to a proposed complex class action proceedinginvolving a consumer "cash-back" voucher program.1 The Court ofAppeal dismissed the appeal solely on the basis that the claimlacked commonality of issues between its class members.

Background

The "cash-back" voucher program was offered to businesses byConsumers Trust. A business participating in this program gaveits customers a voucher if they purchased specific products. Thebusiness would in turn pay a portion of the revenue to ConsumersTrust. A voucher was eligible to be redeemed by a customer fromConsumers Trust for up to three years, as long as the customercomplied with all the conditions on the voucher. The programrelied on the theory that most customers would forget to submittheir vouchers for redemption or else not comply with theconditions and be ineligible to redeem the voucher, therebyallowing the program to be profitable.

The plaintiffs were customers who received vouchers for theirfurniture purchases from the defendants. However, before theycould redeem the vouchers, Consumers Trust filed for bankruptcy.At this juncture, United Furniture sent a notice to its customersthat United Furniture and Consumers Trust are separate entitiesand that the vouchers were contracts solely with Consumers Trust,not with United Furniture. To mitigate the situation, UnitedFurniture instituted an in-store credit program for customers whohad been issued vouchers.

In response to these events, the plaintiffs sought certificationto proceed as a class action under the Class Proceedings Actagainst United Furniture and its related companies. Theplaintiffs claimed (1) breach of warranty or collateral contract,(2) deceptive acts or practices or unconscionable acts orpractices under the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act(BPCPA), (3) negligent misrepresentation, and (4) negligence.

The Initial Decision

The chambers judge denied the application for certificationbecause the pleadings did not disclose reasonable causes of actionand there was not enough evidence to support many of theallegations. She also found that there were insufficient commonissues between the purported class members. With respect to theclaims under the BPCPA and in negligent misrepresentation, thecourt focused on the significant variables in this case. A courtwould be required to consider various individual documents andespecially individual oral representations made by different salesrepresentatives to the plaintiffs in different stores, not justone representation, as was the case in a previous action involvingthe same voucher program. The plaintiffs appealed this decision onmultiple grounds, including the judge's reliance on the necessityof the oral representations in making her decision that the caselacked the required commonality.

Commonality of Issues

Despite the plaintiffs advancing multiple grounds of appeal, aunanimous panel of the Court of Appeal, determined that theapplication for certification turned on a single issue: the lackof commonality.

Citing the Supreme Court of Canada in Western Canadian ShoppingCentres Inc. v. Dutton, the Court of Appeal emphasized thatcommonality is central to a class proceeding. A common issue isan issue that must be resolved in order to resolve each classmember's claim, and success for one class member on a common issuemeans success for all class members. Essentially, a common issueis the ingredient that unites the class members in a class action.

Counsel for the plaintiffs argued that this particular classaction could proceed by only considering the written brochuresreceived by the plaintiffs. The Court of Appeal was not swayed bythis argument and found that that the written material incombination with the oral representations received by theindividual plaintiffs were "inextricably intertwined" with thequestion of the defendants' liability. Thus, the litigation couldnot proceed without considering the oral representations. TheCourt's key concern was that if the case proceeded as a classaction and the oral representations were to be considered, a courtwould be forced to embark on an individual inquiry for each andevery member of the purported class. This clearly would beunworkable, and demonstrated that a class proceeding was not thepreferable procedure.

Since each customer had a different experience in a differentstore owned by the defendants and received, one assumes, differentoral representations regarding the voucher program, this matterwas ill-suited to be heard as a class action. The appeal wasdismissed.

Commentary

While claims based on a specific representation made to an entireclass have been certified in the past, this case illustrates thegeneral rule that claims based on individualized representationsmade by different individuals to different individual classmembers at different times in different places are, notsurprisingly, unlikely to raise common issues and are thusunlikely to be certified as a class action. While there wascommonality in some significant aspects the Plaintiffs' claims,there was not enough to overcome the hurdles that inevitably wouldbe presented to the court in adjudication.

UNITED STATES: Vietnam War Veterans Finally Receive Benefits------------------------------------------------------------Jenn Bernstein, writing for FoxCT, reports that for the first timein 45 years, Vietnam War veteran and New Haven resident ConleyMonk feels vindicated.

"I didn't think this day would come, but I'm thankful for allthose involved with supporting me," said Mr. Monk.

Mr. Monk received a bad discharge from the military whilesuffering from post-traumatic stress disorder because PTSD was nota medical diagnosis until 1980.

Many service members who struggled with the disorder, likeMr. Monk, received "bad papers" instead of a medical discharge,and these wounded veterans were left out to dry.

"I didn't have any benefits at all," said Mr. Monk, "so I had towork two jobs to go to school to get the education that I didget." Monk went on, "I was unable to buy a house that I wanted tobuy through the GI bill."

It's estimated 80,000 Vietnam-era vets suffered from PTSD.

Last year, Mr. Monk and four others filed the class-actionlawsuit.

"Our nation is keeping faith with Conley Monk," said Sen. RichardBlumenthal, "but it owes the same justice to tens of thousands ofother veterans whose fate has been similar."

Righting this wrong isn't over.

Mr. Monk has a message to fellow veterans who feel they've beenleft behind.

"I will continue to fight for other veterans and if any otherveterans are watching this show," said Mr. Monk, "that they knownow it's possible that they can get their discharges upgraded."

Mr. Blumenthal stressed this avenue is available to otherveterans, but they must step forward.

UNITED STATES: Coal Miners Compile Signatures for EPA Class Action------------------------------------------------------------------WOWKTV reports that laid off coal miners, and some still employed,are compiling signatures for a class-action lawsuit against theEnvironmental Protection Agency's Clean Air Act. The petitioncurrently has thousands of signatures.

Those coal miners from West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky andPennsylvania met on June 21 at the Moundsville Eagles Hall fromnoon to 6:00 p.m. to show their support for the lawsuit againstthe EPA for violations that occurred during the process ofenacting legislation.

"This is a provision that can be challenged now. It is anadministrative and legislative error. It doesn't have to do withthe final rule and we are not attacking the rule in its entirety.We'll let the states and the coal companies do that at a laterdate," said one of the plaintiffs, Kurtis Armann.

Mr. Armann said officials found serious problems that occurredduring the legislative process, specifically the lack of peerreview. He adds the pending regulations are destroying economiesand a way of life for people in West Virginia.

UNITED STATES: Judge Approves Deal Over Pershing Park Arrest------------------------------------------------------------Spencer S. Hsu, writing The Washington Post, reports that ending a13-year legal struggle, a federal judge gave final approval onJune 22 to a settlement in which the federal government agreed tonew terms of engagement with demonstrators in the nation's capitaland agreed to pay $2.2 million to almost 400 protesters andbystanders swept up by U.S. and local police during a September2002 demonstration against the World Bank.

The District in 2010 agreed to pay $8.25 million to the sameclass-action litigants, who were picked up in a mass arrest atPershing Park, and also agreed to overhaul police practices toprotect the First Amendment rights of protesters.

In approving the deal, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivancalled the settlement "historic" and said it could guide policeagencies nationwide.

The settlement came in the wake of unrest prompted by the injuriesand deaths of unarmed black men in custody in cities such asFerguson, Mo., and Baltimore, as the Justice Department reviewswhether local authorities have engaged in a pattern ofunconstitutional policing.

"It is significant this agreement is with the federal government,because the Department of Justice is reviewing the practices andthe policies of local law enforcement agencies," Judge Sullivansaid. "I hope this agreement will serve as a model for localjurisdictions across the country."

Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, executive director of the Partnership forCivil Justice Fund, the nonprofit group that brought the case,said the agreement disproves the belief that the free speech andassembly rights of protesters "have to be constricted for the sakeof security and order."

"There is simply no basis by which any other jurisdiction's policedepartment can legitimately claim it cannot enact these proceduralstandards that conform to fundamental constitutionalrequirements," Ms. Verheyden-Hilliard said.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Marina Braswell told the court that thesettlement, which concerned the U.S. Park Police and incidentsinvolving other agencies -- D.C. police in the Pershing Park case-- could help shape policies for other law enforcement agenciescalled in to provide such inter-agency assistance.

The agreement settles complaints that federal and localauthorities violated the constitutional rights of 386 peoplearrested without warning Sept. 27, 2002, in Pershing Park, leavingsome tied wrist to ankle and detained as long as 24 hours.

UNITED STATES: VA Police Officers Sue Over Recording Devices------------------------------------------------------------Bryant Jordan, writing for Military.com, reports that twenty-fourcurrent and former Veterans Affairs Department police officershave filed a lawsuit against the VA alleging their boss spied onthem using hiding cameras and microphones, including in rooms usedby officers for changing clothes at the VA Medical Center inWashington, DC.

But with the officers seeking class action status to covereveryone who has had access to or used the rooms since the buggingbegan about two years ago, the number of workers potentiallyrecorded could go well beyond the two dozen cops.

"In the two years prior to the filing of this action, literallydozens of employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs haveused the rooms where the undisclosed recording equipment wasmaintained," the suit contends. "These include police officers,cleaning staff, doctors, nurses, and maintenance personnel. Theclass, therefore, could potentially involve more than 100employees."

The police officers are demanding compensatory and punitivedamages and the expunging of all disciplinary actions takenagainst them in connection with the recordings.

The lawsuit alleges that Mr. Brown "acted on the information herecorded through the use of these recording devices to disciplineemployees, including termination and to create an atmosphere ofutter distrust amongst all employees."

MICROPHONE FOUND

The lawsuit states that on Jan. 19, 2014, one of the officers toldcolleagues that Mr. Brown might have secretly installed cameras tomonitor their activities. Some five days later a number ofofficers in the Police Control Room found a camera with amicrophone mounted to a support bracket for the closed-circuit TVmonitors. Though the devices had indicator lights, these werecovered with black tape, the suit claims.

The officers in the room covered up the microphone while the groupdiscussed what they should do about it, according to the lawsuit.As they were talking, Mr. Brown came into the room demanding toknow what they were doing there and ordered them all to draftstatements explaining what was happening, according to thelawsuit.

About two months later, on March 14, another hidden camera andmicrophone were discovered in a second room, this one usedprimarily for writing reports and as a break room.

Just a week later, on March 22, video and audio captured by thedevices was used by Mr. Brown to discipline an officer by imposinga two-week suspension without pay.

Yet another camera and microphone were found in a third room inJanuary 2015 -- this time in the office of the Watch Commander,the suit claims.

This room is used, in part, as a changing room for both male andfemale officers. According to the officers' lawsuit, this cameraand microphone remain in place at the hospital, with "the videoand audio feeds . . . delivered on a real-time basis to DefendantBrown's office where they are recorded."

The alleged illegal bugging of the rooms may go back as far asMay 29, 2013, according to the suit. That's the start date giventhe court for including employees who may have been recorded bythe equipment.

VA officials and the attorney representing the 24 current andformer officers, Ken Gauvey of Hyattsville, Maryland, said theycould not talk about the case, though Mr. Gauvey did provideMilitary.com with a copy of the complaint and photos of thedevices.

In a brief statement the VA said it "remains vigilant inmaintaining a workplace environment that protects employees.However, we cannot comment on this case due to pendinglitigation."

UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Sued in Mo. Over Defective HVAC Compressor---------------------------------------------------------------J. Ryan Williams, on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated v. United Technologies Corp. and Carrier Corp., Case No.2:15-cv-04144-KNL (W.D. Mo., June 30, 2015), is brought on behalfof all consumers who purchased the Defendants' heating,ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) units, Bryant modelnumbers 698B, 598B, 286A, and 187A and Carrier model numbers38YDB, 38TDB, 25HNA6, and 24ANA7, with compressor failure defect.

The Defendants are manufacturers of heating, ventilating, and airconditioning products, with their principal place of business inConnecticut.

US BANK: Judge Gives Tentative Approval to Peregrine Settlement---------------------------------------------------------------Y. Peter Kang and Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, report thatan Illinois federal judge on June 23 gave tentative approval to a$44.5 million settlement to resolve a class action accusing U.S.Bank NA of facilitating the $215 million theft of customer fundsat now-bankrupt futures merchant Peregrine Financial Group Inc.U.S. District Judge Sara L. Ellis gave preliminary approval to thesettlement, filed on June 18, and also approved certification ofthe class for purposes of the settlement, according to courtrecords.

The deal resolves claims brought by futures account holders andcustomers of Peregrine accusing U.S. Bank of breach of fiduciaryduty and fraud by omission surrounding the activities of formerdepositor Peregrine and its now-imprisoned CEO Russell Wasendorf.

Plaintiffs said they will ask the court to approve attorneys' feesof no more than 31 percent of the settlement fund, orapproximately $13.8 million, and service awards for namedplaintiffs of $5,000 each, according to the motion for preliminaryapproval.

A fairness hearing is set for Oct. 13.

Peregrine's public woes began in July 2012, when the NationalFutures Association took action against the firm, andMr. Wasendorf was found unconscious in a car outside the firm'soffices in Cedar Falls, Iowa, in an apparent suicide attempt.

Mr. Wasendorf's statement said that he was the only person in thecompany with access to Peregrine's U.S. Bank accounts and that heconsistently gave the accounting department counterfeit statementshe often made within hours of receiving the original versions.

Efforts by Mr. Wasendorf's son to confirm the accuracy of hisfather's apparent admissions led him to a U.S. Bank statement forPeregrine's segregated account showing a balance of a little morethan $6 million as of December 2011, compared with an apparentlyfalsified statement he found at Peregrine's accounting department,reflecting a balance of more than $220 million.

Peregrine filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy the following day, justhours after the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission sued itfor fraud. Criminal charges against Mr. Wasendorf followed, andin September 2013 he pled guilty to embezzling at least $100million in investor funds and overstating the amount of customerfunds by at least $210 million.

In January 2013, an Iowa federal judge sentenced Mr. Wasendorf to50 years in prison, the maximum term allowed.

The futures-account class action claimed that it was "commerciallyunjustifiable" not to investigate Mr. Wasendorf's use of asegregated account to determine whether Mr. Wasendorf wasimproperly moving customer money around, citing numeroussuspicious circumstances surrounding the maintenance of theaccount.

The suit had also targeted JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, which reached a$15 million settlement in March 2014 with Peregrine's bankruptcytrustee. U.S. Bank objected to the deal but said if the instantsettlement is approved it would drop its appeal, according tocourt documents.

In April, U.S. Bank settled a similar class action brought byFintec Group Inc. on behalf of commodities brokers who didbusiness with Peregrine.

An attorney for the plaintiffs, Daniel C. Girard --eak@girardgibbs.com -- told Law360 on June 23 that they werepleased with the resolution of the case but declined to commentfurther.

A U.S. Bank spokeswoman said on June 23 they were also satisfiedwith the deal and noted that the settlement will not have aneffect on the company's second-quarter results.

This recall involves the Visonic PowerMax Express and PowerMaxComplete control panels with software version 15. The controlpanels are professionally installed, and have an LCD display andicon-based keypad.

The following affected units can be identified by the abbreviatedproduct name and serial number which can be found on the back ofthe control panel unit:

Visonic has become aware of an issue affecting PowerMax ExpressPowerMax Complete panels with software version 15 used in thesedevices. The external memory in these devices, which containspanel configuration, LCD texts and predefined SMS messages, can beeventually overwritten by the device's event log file. Thiscondition takes approximately one to three years to occur(depending on daily levels of system activity). The resultingimpact on the panel's operation is that false events, such aspower failure and zone trouble, will be displayed on the panel andwill be reported to the central monitoring station; and panelsthat are configured to send SMS messages, will send corrupted SMSmessages. Eventually, real alarm events will not be sent to thecentral monitoring station, and periodic tests done by the endusers will fail. Safety detectors such as smoke, gas, etc. areunaffected and will sound a local alarm if an event occurs.

Neither Health Canada nor Visonic has received any reports ofconsumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this product.

Approximately 69 units were sold in Canada through professionalalarm installers.

The recalled panels were sold from February 2012 to February 2014.

Manufactured in Israel.

Manufacturer: Visonic Ltd. Kiryat Gat ISRAEL

Distributor: Visonic, Inc. Westford Massachusetts UNITED STATES

Consumers with affected units should contact theirdealer/installer/distributor or contact Visonic to receiveinstructions for repair of their panel.

WESTERN POWER: Slater & Gordon Examines Bushfire Evidence---------------------------------------------------------Communitynews.com.au reports that law firm Slater and Gordon hasexamined evidence since the Parkerville, Stoneville and Mt Helenabushfires on January 12 last year and is encouraging a classaction against Western Power. It intends to seek compensation foranyone affected by the bushfires, which destroyed 57 homes anddamaged 257 other properties.

Stoneville, Parkerville Progress Association chairman Greg Jonessaid it was a good opportunity for people to seek compensation fortheir losses including any gaps between insurance payouts andactual losses. But it is having great difficulty in contactingeveryone who may be eligible to join such an action.

"We do not have access to any official contact address lists andwe need to ensure that everyone affected by the bushfire iscontacted and advised by Slater and Gordon so they may make aninformed decision regarding their legal rights and options aboutjoining a group legal action or not," Mr. Jones said.

"Many persons have either moved away from the area or; they havesold their demolished property and moved on or; they may beconfused that the pending legal action is only for those who havelost their homes or; they do not know about the pending legalaction and how they may benefit from this process."

Slater and Gordon lawyer Kevin Banks-Smith said due to thesensitive nature of the discussions the meetings are only open tothose affected by the bushfires but he hoped people who may havemoved away from the area would be aware of the meetings.

A special sub-committee known as the Bushfire ClaimantsConsultative Committee has been formed and a meeting was scheduledJune 30 at the Parkerville Pavilion.

WHOLE FOODS: Sales Tax Class Action Partially Dismissed-------------------------------------------------------Adam P. Beckerink, Esq., Jack Trachtenberg, Esq., Douglas A. Wick,Esq., and James L. Rockney Esq. of Reed Smith report that onJune 15, 2015, the United States District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Illinois, Eastern Division, partially granted WholeFoods' motion to dismiss in the case of Wong v. Whole Foods MarketGroup, Inc. In that case, the plaintiff, Mr. Wong, sued WholeFoods for allegedly over-collecting sales tax on a purchase forwhich he used a coupon, leading to a purported over-collection of$1.39. Based on this one instance, Mr. Wong's class actioncomplaint accused Whole Foods of consumer fraud, common law fraud,and unjust enrichment. Mr. Wong requested compensatory damages,punitive damages equal to 1% of Whole Foods' Illinois revenue foreach year the purported violations occurred, an injunction againstWhole Foods, and attorney's fees. Recently, U.S. District CourtJudge Kennelly dismissed Mr. Wong's unjust enrichment charge forfailure to state a claim.

Motion to Dismiss Whole Foods moved to dismiss Mr. Wong's case,arguing that (1) the Voluntary Payment Doctrine barred the suit,(2) the claim failed to adequately allege a consumer fraud actionunder Illinois law, (3) the claim failed to allege the elements ofcommon law fraud with the required particularity, (4) the unjustenrichment claim failed as a matter of law, and (5) the claims forpunitive damages were unsupported by the complaint.

Court's Order Judge Kennelly dismissed the unjust enrichment claimbecause Mr. Wong failed to allege that Whole Foods retained anypart of the overpaid sales tax. Illinois law requires a plaintiffto allege that the defendant retained the unjust benefit for avalid unjust enrichment claim. Mr. Wong's non-pleading of such afact meant that the unjust enrichment claim must fail.

Judge Kennelly ruled that Mr. Wong's consumer fraud and common lawfraud claims were adequately pleaded and thus not dismissed.Furthermore, Judge Kennelly held that the Voluntary PaymentDoctrine did not bar Mr. Wong's claims against Whole Foods. Inthe sales tax context, the Voluntary Payment Doctrine generallyholds that a person who voluntarily pays a tax is on notice aboutthe amount of tax collected, and was not forced or otherwisecompelled to make the purchase creating the tax liability, andthus, cannot recover the amounts paid.

Longstanding Illinois authority has held that when a retailercollects sales tax that is later determined erroneous, thecustomer may not bring a refund suit against the retailer as longas the retailer remitted the sales tax to the state. However, aquestion still may be raised as to the Illinois vendor discount,also known as the vendor collection allowance. The vendorcollection allowance is the 1.75% portion of the sales taxcollected on each transaction that an Illinois retailer is allowedto retain as reimbursement for the retailer's costs of serving asthe state's sales tax collector. As an example, if a customerpurchases $200 of goods and the state tax of 6.25% is applied, theretailer is allowed to keep $0.22 on this transaction (1.75% ofthe $12.50 in tax collected on the $200).

The Coupon Case Chronicles The crux of the issue in the WholeFoods case and similar cases around the country is whether, when acustomer uses a coupon to attain a discounted price, sales taxshould be collected on the full retail price or the discountedprice. The 44 states (plus the District of Columbia) that levysales taxes deal with this issue differently. Some states mandatethat sales tax always be collected on the discounted price. A morecommon rule is to allow for collection of sales tax based on thediscounted price when the coupon originates from the retaileritself. In most cases, when the coupon is a manufacturer'scoupon, i.e., a coupon issued by a third-party for which theretailer is reimbursed after it sells the product at thediscounted price, sales tax must be collected on the full retailprice.

Key terms such as "manufacturer's coupon" are rarely defined instates' statutes or regulations. Some coupons for which theretailers are reimbursed are distributed by wholesalers or otherthird-parties, not manufacturers. And not all manufacturersreimburse retailers for 100% of the discount allowed under theircoupons. Furthermore, the reimbursement may not come in the formof cash; for instance, the manufacturer might agree to stock itsproduct on the retailer's shelves, saving the retailer laborcosts. Hence, it will not always be clear whether a given couponshould be treated as a manufacturer's coupon for sales taxpurposes.

Even when the rules themselves are clear, it can be difficult inthe real world to differentiate between retailers' coupons andmanufacturers' coupons. Some states, like New York, require anotation on the face of the coupon explaining whether it wasdistributed by the manufacturer or the retailer. Many others haveno such notice requirements. Moreover, it is impractical to expecta sales clerk, upon being handed a pile of coupons, to quicklydifferentiate between manufacturer and retailer coupons, andcharge sales tax accordingly.

It is often suggested that computer software can make complianceeasier, but the sales tax rules around coupons still cause thornycompliance problems. Software, in order to correctly apply salestax, needs the proper inputs. Determining the proper inputsrequires, among other things, determining what a particularjurisdiction's sales tax rules are, and differentiating betweenmanufacturers' coupons and retailers' coupons. So there is nogetting around the fundamental factual and legal problems thatplague sales tax rules that differentiate between manufacturer andretailer coupons.

With almost 10,000 state and local sales tax jurisdictions,multistate businesses face a Herculean compliance task. Thecoupon cases allege fraudulent activity and unjust enrichment, butsince the retailers remit the collected sales tax to the state,these assertions defy both logic and common sense. The truth isthat a combination of vague sales tax laws and the growingadministrative burden of multistate taxation conspire to causewell-meaning businesses to, in some cases, inadvertently collectthe wrong amount of tax on certain discounted sales.

Retailers Should Be Proactive In the Whole Foods case, Mr. Wong isclaiming he was overcharged $1.39. But the law firm representinghim hopes to make millions from the suit. Plaintiff's law firmslooking for a big payday are actively targeting large retailers.Such businesses should consider being proactive in light of thenew tax risks posed by plaintiff's law firms. Obtaining counselexperienced in litigating State Tax matters is the first step.Lawyers experienced in this area can examine your businesspractices for vulnerabilities, and offer advice for mitigating anyrisks before a lawsuit occurs. If such a suit does occur, anexperienced State Tax lawyer or law firm can defend against thesuit with the greatest efficacy.

WYETH CANADA: Settles Class Action Over Cancer-Linked HRT Drugs---------------------------------------------------------------Christine Wood, writing for CoastReporter, reports that the classaction lawsuit launched by a Sechelt woman against Wyeth CanadaInc. for selling hormone replacement therapy drugs linked tobreast cancer is now settled and a $13.65 million payment has beenawarded by the B.C. Supreme Court.

A large portion of that settlement, about 43 per cent, will go tolegal counsel for the plaintiffs in the class action suit. Theapproximately 1,100 plaintiffs themselves will split what'sremaining based on medical costs incurred to date and the abilityto prove they took the hormone replacement drug Premarin orPremplus between 1977 and 2003.

Sechelt resident Dianna Stanway, who launched the class actionsuit, said that while the payout may be minimal in the end for themany women involved, she was "satisfied with whatever they can getus."

"As long as everybody knows it can cause cancer. That was the mainobject of the court case, because people didn't know it did at thetime but now they do," Ms. Stanway said.

"I'm quite pleased with the outcome of it all."

Ms. Stanway started the class action suit in 2004 after taking thedrug Premarin and subsequently being diagnosed with ductal andlobular breast cancer.

Ms. Stanway became the lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuitbecause she had all the receipts and printouts from 2003 to proveshe took the drug before her cancer diagnosis.

"I'm one of these people that keep everything and I had everyreceipt and every printout from the drugstore," Ms. Stanway said.

Plaintiffs in the case will now have to each prove they took thedrug between 1977 and 2003 and that they developed breast cancerafter taking the drug before they can receive any payout fromPfizer, which now owns Wyeth Canada.

Ms. Stanway said the best way to prove eligibility is to "go backto your doctor or go back to your drugstore to get proof. That'sthe only way I know to do it, unless you have your own receipts."

In addition to the approximately 1,100 women already involved inthe case, Ms. Stanway's lawyer Douglas Lennox said more women inB.C. will have the chance to sign on within the coming year.

"The deadline for people outside of the province expired last yearbut it still remains open for people within the province. Therewill be an ad in various B.C. newspapers beginning Monday, June 29announcing the settlement and the final claims deadline forpeople," Mr. Lennox said.

Residents of B.C. will have one year from the date of theannouncement to sign onto the class action suit.

ZORIA FARMS: Settles Sexual Harassment Case for $330,000--------------------------------------------------------Sasha Khokha, writing for KQED, reports that the federal EqualEmployment Opportunity Commission has announced a $330,000settlement in a sexual harassment case involving 10 Latinofarmworkers at Zoria Farms, once one of the largest dried fruitprocessors in the country.

The EEOC case alleged that since 2007, at least two supervisorsfor the Madera-based company would make unwelcome sexual comments,hug and kiss Latina farmworkers, and pressure them for dates orsex. Court filings say that both female and male farmworkersreported the harassment, but the company failed to take immediateaction. After Zoria Farms sold the company to Z Foods in 2008,many of the workers were denied jobs at the new operation, and theEEOC charge says that was because of retaliation for complaints.

"The agricultural industry in particular needs to recognize thesusceptibility of its workforce to sexual harassment and makeprotecting workers a priority," says Anna Park, regional attorneyfor the EEOC in Los Angeles. She's also featured in a series asthe lead prosecutor in a class-action lawsuit involving janitorswho were sexually harassed and raped in the Central Valley.

The five-year consent decree recently signed not only providesmonetary relief to the 10 farmworkers, but the company also agreedto change its policies and practices should it decide to re-open-- including a centralized tracking system for complaints ofdiscrimination and retaliation. Similar agreements have beenreached in EEOC settlements involving the janitorial industry.

The $330,000 settlement is significant, but not as large as othersettlements that farmworkers have been paid for sexual harassment.As we reported back in 2006, a farmworker who said she was rapedat Harris Farms was awarded $1 million in damages and lost wages.

The EEOC filed a case against both Zoria Farms and Z Foods infederal court in Fresno in September 2013. The case against ZFoods is still pending.

On certain side-by-side UTV's, the fuel pump retaining ring couldcrack due to a defect in the molding process. If the machine wereto tip on its side, fuel could leak through these cracks,resulting in a fuel leak, which in the presence of an ignitionsource, could result in a fire causing injury and/or propertydamage. Correction: Dealers will replace the fuel pump retainingring.

On certain vehicles, the driver's side frontal airbag could deployin a rotated orientation due to an improperly assembled driver'sside airbag module. This could increase the risk of injury to thedriver in a crash where airbag deployment is warranted.Correction: Dealers will replace the driver's side airbag module.

* CFPB Posts Grievances Against Financial Services Companies------------------------------------------------------------Jeff Horwitz and Ken Sweet, writing for The Associated Press,report that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau releasedthousands of complaints on June 25 from disgruntled customers ofbanks, credit card companies and other providers of financialservices.

The bureau posted a database of the grievances on its website overvehement protests from the financial industry. The databasecontains 7,700 complaints filed online by people who agreed to airtheir complaints publicly.

The CFPB offers a disclaimer that it does not investigate thesubstance of the complaints before posting them. Some postingscome with spelling errors, some with gratuitous capitalization ofwords. The Bureau hopes the compilation of the grievances willpoint both it and the general public to the personal financialtrouble spots of the day.

The targets of the complaints vary widely, and include small debtcollection companies as well as Wall Street giants. Among thecomplaints: U.S. Bank supposedly gave a Wisconsin parent's youngson a credit card with a $4,500 limit that he didn't request, anda California couple reported finally catching up on mortgagepayments to M&T bank, only to be told they were still a month inarrears.

The database represents a small fraction of the 627,000 totalcomplaints the bureau has received in the four years it's beenoperating. The CFPB began offering the option of allowing peopleto publicly share their complaints in March.

"We believe the disclosure of this information is one of the besttools government agencies can use to improve the operation of themarketplace," said Richard Cordray, the Consumer FinancialProtection Bureau's director, calling the narratives "a valuededucational and shopping tool."

The public posting of the database is a sharp break from thetraditional practices of other financial regulators. How andwhether the data gets used, whether by fellow regulators,plaintiff's attorneys or people shopping looking for a new bank,won't become apparent for a while.

For now, many people making complaints to the CFPB are choosing toshare them. According to the Bureau, more than half of the peoplewho've filed complaints since March chose to make them public.

The individual grievances and the public database were createddespite repeated protests from the financial services industry.

The American Bankers Association, which has been against thedatabase since the bureau proposed it last year, said the databasewould be "a purveyor of at best unsubstantiated, and potentiallyfalse, information."

"The public disclosure of unverified consumer complaint narrativesdoesn't advance that goal and may threaten consumer privacy," theorganization said.

Credit reporting giant Experian, which has just over 21,000complaints in the Bureau's overall database, argued that thecomplaints would likely contain "inaccurate, misleading, or evenderogatory or offensive statements."

In previous retail banking controversies, such as the practice ofbanks re-ordering daily debit card transactions to produceadditional overdraft penalties, people complained for years beforeregulators took notice. Meanwhile, banks such as JPMorgan Chasewere logging thousands of overdraft complaints each month,according to documents later produced in a class action lawsuit.

If you purchased securities in any of the companies during theclass periods described above and/or own shares in any of thecompanies and would like to learn more about any potential claimsor you wish to discuss these matters and have any questionsconcerning this announcement or your rights, please contact MarcS. Henzel (610) 660-8000, email at Mhenzel@Henzellaw.com or tosign up online, visit the firm's website at www.henzellaw.com

The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel is a national shareholderlitigation firm representing shareholders & investors in variousareas of securities laws including but not limited to: classactions, derivatives, transactional (buyouts/takeovers/mergers)and FINRA & NYSE Arbitrations.

* Ted Frank Defends Acceptance of Plaintiffs Lawyers' Fees----------------------------------------------------------Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that even after allthe decision has cost him, Ted Frank of the non-profit Center forClass Action Fairness believes he was justified in accepting$250,000 in fees from a plaintiffs' lawyer who engages in tacticsMr. Frank considers "repugnant" and "unethical."

"I felt I was doing it for the greater good," Mr. Frank toldReuters' Frankel on June 25. "I think good results are moreimportant than good intentions."

Mr. Frank was explaining and justifying his business relationshipwith a Texas plaintiffs' lawyer named Christopher Bandas, who,like Mr. Frank, frequently represents clients objecting to classaction settlements. But Mr. Bandas, unlike Frank, is a for-profitobjector. Frank's retainer agreements contain a provision barringclients from dropping their objections in exchange for paymentsfrom class counsel. Mr. Bandas, at least according to Mr. Frank,makes such deals.

Mr. Frank's consulting agreement with Mr. Bandas fell apartearlier this month, under circumstances Mr. Frank described in aJune 10 declaration at the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as"lurid, complex and Grishamesque." Their dispute arose inobjectors' appeal of a $75.5 million settlement with Capital Onefor debt collection robocalls. Both Messrs. Frank and Bandasrepresented class members protesting a $16 million fee award toclass counsel at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein. Mr. Bandas,according to Mr. Frank, worked out a deal with Lieff Cabraser todrop his client's appeal. After he told Mr. Frank that LieffCabraser would pay Frank's client $25,000 to abandon the appeal,Mr. Frank ended his retainer agreement with Mr. Bandas.

Messrs. Frank and Bandas have now reached a settlement, Frank toldme. On June 24, Mr. Frank withdrew a motion at the 7th Circuit tobe appointed a guardian of the Capital One class. Mr. Bandasdropped his Texas state court suit. Absent a court order(presumably from the 7th Circuit in the Capital One appeal),Mr. Frank is not permitted to disclose the details of thesettlement.

But he agreed to talk on June 25 about why, in his view, he didn'tdo anything wrong -- not in entering the agreement with Mr. Bandasand not in disclosing some of its details to the 7th Circuit.Mr. Frank seemed to be remarkably unbowed by all the fallout fromthe Capital One appeal, confident it won't hurt the mission of theCenter for Class Action Fairness, and eager for the 7th Circuit tostart an investigation of Lieff Cabraser's payments to Mr. Bandas'client and other objectors to the Capital One settlement. LieffCabraser asked Frank to withdraw his assertions of unethicalbehavior by the firm but Mr. Frank refused.

"They've said they will seek an ethics ruling against me,"Mr. Frank said. "I'm confident I haven't disclosed clientconfidences and wasn't acting against my former client'sinterests. The more the 7th Circuit investigates, the better Icome out." (Jonathan Selbin of Lieff Cabraser declined tocomment.)

Mr. Frank conceded that, in some ways, he has lost the right toclaim moral authority by accepting payments derived, as least inpart, from a business model he has loudly deplored. But he waswilling to make that compromise, he said.

"What's the greater evil?" he said. "Saying, 'I refuse to beinvolved in a situation where Chris Bandas can make money' orstanding by and doing nothing when class counsel rips off theclass?"

Because of his consulting fees from Mr. Bandas, Mr. Frank said, hewas able to take less money from the Center for Class ActionFairness, which, in turn, permitted the nonprofit to bring on morelawyers, take up more cases and hire expert witnesses. ThroughMr. Bandas, Mr. Frank won one of his most notable victories, aJune 2014 decision from the 7th Circuit that struck down a"scandalous" class settlement with the Pella Corporation. "Itseemed to me the greater good was being able to stop occurrenceslike the Pella settlement instead of being able to say I'm theholiest man in the world," Mr. Frank said.

Mr. Frank acknowledged there will be more consequences to comefrom the Capital One fracas. He said the center may have totighten up its client screening to prevent future class membersfrom accepting payments in exchange for dropping appeals. He alsosaid he may have to explain to the Internal Revenue Service how itworked out that Mr. Bandas, a for-profit objector, obtained asettlement for his client in the Capital One case on the basis ofa brief written by the Center for Class Action Fairness, anonprofit.

But in the end, Frank said, his falling out with Mr. Bandas showsexactly the structural problem with class actions he's beencomplaining about for years: Once a settlement has been reached,the class's interests aren't safeguarded. Class counsel want toget settlements approved, and, according to Mr. Frank, for-profitobjectors can make big money just by agreeing to go away.Objectors like him and his clients, meanwhile, are rarely rewardedfor seeing appeals through, even if they deliver value to classmembers.

* Transfat Ruling to Spark PHO Regulation-Related Lawsuits----------------------------------------------------------Glenn G. Lammi, writing for Forbes, reports that to no one'ssurprise, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has confirmed itsNovember 8, 2013 initial determination that the agency no longerconsiders the main source of trans fat in Americans' diet,partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs), "generally recognized as safe"(GRAS). In its announcement, FDA emphasizes how the three-yearwindow it has granted food companies to comply with the orderwould "allow for an orderly [transition] process." Before anyoneapplauds FDA for being reasonable or magnanimous, however,consider what else the agency says, and doesn't say, in itsDeclaratory Order ("Order"). FDA's statements and omissionsessentially set the table for an explosion of private lawsuitsthat could require PHO-containing products to be reformulated, orremoved from the market, far earlier than June 2018.

What the Order Says. Under federal law, an FDA determination thata substance is no longer GRAS is not the equivalent of it being"unsafe." It means that because some level of uncertainty hasarisen from studies of the substance, food producers must seekapproval for its use in specific products through a food additivepetition. The Order, however, glosses over this inconvenientnuance, and instead consistently and repeatedly states that FDAhas concluded PHOs are unsafe. The media has slavishly echoedFDA's distorted conclusion to an American public that includesprospective judges and jurors for the lawsuits to come.

FDA's Order also concludes that no measurable level exists atwhich PHOs won't increase disease risk. The agency does not,therefore, back off the rather alarming statement it made in itsinitial PHOs determination that "any incremental increase in transfat consumption increases the risk of CHD [coronary heartdisease]." Such Naderite "unsafe at any speed" assertions aremanna from heaven for plaintiffs' lawyers. They not onlyexponentially expand the number of plaintiffs that lawyers canclaim to represent in class actions, but they also further magnifypublic fear and may encourage precautionary judicial decision-making.

The agency further encourages litigation with its curiousassessment of the Order's impact on state or local laws regardingPHOs. After noting that the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act contains noexpress provision that limits state or local laws or common lawduties (i.e. court-made law), FDA then "decline[s] to take aposition regarding the potential for implied preemptive effect."But in the very next sentence, the agency turns on a dime andmakes the bold, unsupported declaration, "FDA believes, however,that state or local laws that prohibit use of PHOs in food are notlikely to be in conflict with federal law, or frustrate federalobjectives." If the Order's objective was in part "an orderly[transition] process" away from PHOs over three years, theagency's unsolicited opinion on federal preemption begs thequestion: how do successful state-law consumer protection suits,requiring immediate product withdrawal, not frustrate thatobjective?

What the Order Fails to Say. Two key omissions from the Order alsosupport regulation by litigation of PHOs. First, despite beingurged to do so by numerous stakeholders, FDA refuses to include anexplicit statement that PHO-containing products currently on theshelves or introduced into commerce up to June 2018 are marketedlawfully. Products containing unapproved additives are consideredadulterated and subject to seizure. Plaintiffs' lawyers suing foodcompanies will argue that the presence of PHOs renders thetargeted product illegal under federal law, and thus in violationof identical state laws. Companies will argue that in setting atwo-year compliance period, FDA implicitly concluded that PHO-containing foods would be compliant until June 2018. Why wouldFDA leave it for the courts to divine whether this was the Order'sintention? The agency also could have stated it would exercise itsenforcement discretion and refrain from seizing PHO-containingfood during the compliance period. But it includes no suchstatement.

Second, FDA says nothing about its GRAS-status decision havingonly prospective effect. Food industry stakeholders had sought anassurance that PHO-containing products on the market since the1950s had been marketed lawfully. Companies are probably notconcerned that FDA is going to punish them for past marketing.Rather, apprehension over ruinous retroactive private or evengovernment-led lawsuits likely motivated companies' request forthis clarification. Private class actions could assert productliability claims, public nuisance claims, and claims for medicalmonitoring. City attorneys and state attorneys general may suefor reimbursement of public health care expenditures for the costsof treating cardiovascular disease, Type-II diabetes, and otherconditions.

A Silent Delegation? At best, the Order's statements and omissionsreflect an FDA that is woefully naive about the larger publichealth crusade against "Big Food." At worst, FDA is silently (andimproperly) delegating the job of forcing rapid removal of PHOs toprivate lawyers and politically-ambitious state officials. For thepast five years, FDA has sat on its hands as hundreds of classaction lawsuits have sought to enforce federal food labeling ruleson nationally-marketed products. Even if FDA is not consciouslysetting the table for PHO-oriented lawsuits, targeted companiesshould not expect the agency to step in and defend its regulatoryturf.

The suits have already begun. Just two days after the Order'srelease, plaintiffs' lawyers at the Weston Firm filed their latestlawsuit, Backus v. Heinz (the firm's 19th PHO-oriented suit by ourcount). The complaint cites the agency's GRAS decision and claimsthat the company's frozen potato products are now unlawfullyadulterated. Commenting on FDA's Order, name partner GregoryWeston told Politico, the action "should have taken place at least20 years ago, and there is no justification for any sort offurther delay or phasing."

Regardless of whether FDA meant to aid attorneys like Mr. Westonor blundered into doing so, the fear, uncertainty, and needlessexpenditure of resources that a wave of PHO-related litigationwill provoke are decidedly contrary to public health and thepublic interest. If FDA is unwilling to provide additionalguidance and undertake other measures that can ensure orderlycompliance with its Order, it may be necessary for other branchesof government to step in and remind the agency of its duties underfederal law.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contactPeter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.